economic instruments and tools to support the conservation

CEO Endorsement (CEO) entry – Full Sized Project – GEF - 7Economic instruments and tools to support the conservation of biodiversity, the payment of ecosystem services and sustainabledevelopment

Part I: Project Information

GEF ID10213

Project TypeFSP

Type of Trust FundGET

CBIT/NGICBIT NoNGI No

Project TitleEconomic instruments and tools to support the conservation of biodiversity, the payment of ecosystem services and sustainable development

CountriesChile

Agency(ies)UNDP

UNDP

Other Executing Partner(s)Chile Ministry of Environment

Executing Partner TypeGovernment

GEF Focal AreaBiodiversity

TaxonomyFocal Areas, Climate Change, Climate Change Adaptation, Private sector, Community-based adaptation, National Adaptation Plan, Ecosystem-based Adaptation,Climate Change Mitigation, Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Nationally Determined Contribution,Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Ecosystem Approach, Integrated and Cross-sectoral approach, Restoration and Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands,Sustainable Pasture Management, Sustainable Forest, Land Degradation Neutrality, Carbon stocks above or below ground, Land Cover and Land cover change,Forest, Forest and Landscape Restoration, REDD - REDD+, Biodiversity, Mainstreaming, Forestry - Including HCVF and REDD+, Tourism, Certi�cation -NationalStandards, Financial and Accounting, Conservation Finance, Payment for Ecosystem Services, Natural Capital Assessment and Accounting, Biomes, Wetlands, SeaGrasses, Rivers, Temperate Forests, Protected Areas and Landscapes, Community Based Natural Resource Mngt, Productive Landscapes, Productive Seascapes,Gender Equality, Gender results areas, Awareness Raising, Knowledge Generation and Exchange, Capacity Development, Access to bene�ts and services,Participation and leadership, Gender Mainstreaming, Sex-disaggregated indicators, Bene�ciaries, Capacity, Knowledge and Research, Knowledge Generation,Enabling Activities, Innovation, Learning, Adaptive management, Theory of change, Indicators to measure change, Inuencing models, ЀTransform policy andregulatory environments, Deploy innovative �nancial instruments, Convene multi-stakeholder alliances, Demonstrate innovative approache, Strengthen institutionalcapacity and decision-making, Stakeholders, Civil Society, Non-Governmental Organization, Academia, Trade Unions and Workers Unions, Local Communities, PrivateSector, Large corporations, Communications, Behavior change, Education, Indigenous Peoples, Type of Engagement, Information Dissemination, Consultation,Participation, Partnership, Fisheries

Rio MarkersClimate Change MitigationClimate Change Mitigation 1

Climate Change AdaptationClimate Change Adaptation 1

Submission Date

12/10/2020

Expected Implementation Start8/1/2021

Expected Completion Date8/1/2026

Duration60In Months

Agency Fee($)218,500.00

A. FOCAL/NON-FOCAL AREA ELEMENTS

Objectives/Programs Focal Area Outcomes TrustFund

GEFAmount($)

Co-FinAmount($)

BD-1-1 BD 1-1-Mainstream biodiversity across sectors as well as landscapes and seascapes throughbiodiversity mainstreaming in priority sectors"

GET 742,111.00 3,171,518.00

BD-1-3 BD 1-3- Mainstream biodiversity across sectors as well as landscapes and seascapesthrough Natural Capital Assessment and Accounting

GET 1,031,351.00 4,336,568.00

BD-1-5 BD 1-5-Mainstream biodiversity across sectors as well as landscapes and seascapes throughInclusive conservation

GET 526,538.00 2,200,646.00

Total Project Cost($) 2,300,000.00 9,708,732.00

B. Project description summary

Project Outcomes1 Institutional and governance systemand technical capability established /strengthened for IECB development, application, monitoring and evaluationmeasured by:

- One (1) Governance model for IECBdevelopment, application, monitoringand evaluation through (1) one inter-sectorial National Biodiversity Committee and (3) three Regional Committeesstrengthened, and institutionalized through administrative act.

Project Component FinancingType

Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs TrustFund

GEF Project Financing($) Con�rmed Co-Financing($)

Project Component 1 -Institutional framework,governance and tools for theapplication of economicinstruments for theconservation and sustainableuse of biodiversity and itsecosystem services (IECB) inland, fresh water, marine andcoastal ecosystems.

TechnicalAssistance

GET 678,854.00 3,114,069.00

Project Objective

Improve national �nancing of biodiversity through the design, implementation and optimization of market-based economic instruments (IECB), that reinforcepublic �nancing and facilitate the economic contribution of the private sector to maintaining Chile’s natural capital.

-Four (4) IECB mechanisms achievedcomprising eight(8) operational guides and an information system (1)

- Measures to strengthen institutional capabilities as a result of IECB’s application of �ve (5) sectors/institutions,including: Environmental Impact Assessment Framework, Greend Bonds,NDCs, Potable Water Provision regulations, Sustainability in the Agro-Forestry sector.

1. Multi-sectorial coordination mechanisms with the participation of publicand private stakeholders, designed and implemented tosupport IECB application on the national and regional scale.

2. Technical IECB guidelines and proposals for regulations for their application, monitoring and evaluation in land, fresh water andmarine-coastal environments.

3. Multi-purpose interactive digital IECB Platform for project typologies for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, andan Information System for IECB implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

4. Project models founded in Nature -based Solutions recognized as “eligibleble green expenditures”.

Project Outcome 2 Biodiversity and ecosystem services in priority productive land and marine-coastal landscapes, are maintained and improved through the development of IECB demonstration experiences(DE’s) that make possible an increasein public and private �nancing for sustainable use and conservation. This ismeasured by:

-100,000 ha of landscapes under improved managementto bene�t biodiversity and drinking water provision in LosRíos Region.

-89,890 metric tons of CO2e in Los Ríos Region

-Eight IECB DE’s inland and continental aquatic ecosystems with validation of IECB mechanism guidelines, intervention model, governance model an

Project Output 2

1. Demonstration experiences (DE) forIECB mechanismsaccompanied by asub-national governance model.

2. Proposal for a Strategy to increase�nancing for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystemservices through IECB application.

Project Component 2 -Application of IECBmechanisms includingBiodiversity Offsets for residualimpacts on biodiversity andRetribution for EcosystemServices in demonstrationprojects.

TechnicalAssistance

GET 986,228.00 4,109,717.00

d information system, with an impacton 1,334 direct bene�ciaries (401 women and 933 men)

-Six Financing Strategies (6) implemented, optimized andvalidated for the ESR IECB land andmarine and coastaldemonstration experiences.

-Six Sectorial Measures (6) implemented that link IECB application, increase �nancing for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

-One Financing Strategy (1) for increasing public and private �nancing through IECB implementation for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Project Outcome 3

Project Component 3 -Knowledge management,learning, monitoring andevaluation for effective IECBimplementation.

TechnicalAssistance

GET 525,394.00 2,007,072.00

Technical capabilities established andknowledge increased for IECB application, M&E and effective and e�cientadministrative Project management, supported with an outcomes-based M&E system. This ismeasured by:

-70% of participants in activities for strengthening capabilities con�rm an increase in knowledge equal to or greater than 70% in the training material. (30% are women).

-A Strategic Communication Plan (1) focused on knowledge management implemented.

-An Action Plan forstrengthening capabilities implemented (1).

-One training course under a self-teaching method implemented (1).

-Communication measures for strengthening capabilitiesdesigned and impl

Project Output 3

7. Strategic Communication Plan focused on knowledge management and strengthening capabilities.

8.Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Strategy, stakeholders plan, and genderplanimplemented for e�cient, effective and sustainableachievement of outcomes.

emented. (7 land /7 marine); trainingactivities (1 IECB course implemented); development and publication of IECB documents (1);bulletins (9) and systematization of the experiences (1);promotion of the citizen science platforms (DE Mashue(2) and DE Liquiñe(2)).

Sub Total ($) 2,190,476.00 9,230,858.00

Project Management Cost (PMC)

GET 109,524.00 477,874.00

Sub Total($) 109,524.00 477,874.00

Total Project Cost($) 2,300,000.00 9,708,732.00

C. Sources of Co-�nancing for the Project by name and by type

Sources of Co-�nancing Name of Co-�nancier Type of Co-�nancing

Investment Mobilized Amount($)

Recipient CountryGovernment

Environment Ministry In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

7,309,600.00


Sanitary Services Superintendency (SISS) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

26,150.00


Service for Environmental Evaluation (SEA) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

43,885.00


Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

4,194.00


Institute for the Development of Agriculture and Livestock(INDAP)

In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

200,000.00


National Corporation for Indigenous Development (CONADI) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

15,657.00


Ancud Municipality In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

5,856.00


National Fisheries and Aquiculture Service (SERNAPESCA) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

35,653.00


Ministry for Social and Family Development (MDSF) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

10,400.00


Bureau of Agrarian Studies and Policies (ODEPA) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

279,576.00

Civil Society Organization Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

45,750.00


Environment Superintendency (ES) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

1,207,720.00


Puchuncavi Municipality In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

3,183.00


La Unión Municipality In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

22,386.00

Private Sector CMPC - Mininco Forestry Company SpA In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

43,125.00

Private Sector CMPC - Mininco Forestry Company SpA Grant Investment mobilized 28,750.00

Private Sector AngloAmerican In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

18,750.00

Private Sector AngloAmerican Grant Investment mobilized 103,750.00


Department of Water Works (DOH) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

18,720.00


Association of Municipalities, Corral-La Unión Coastal MountainRange

In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

7,887.00

Private Sector Arauco Forestry Company In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

63,422.00


National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

27,843.00


National Assets Ministry (MBN) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

64,075.00

Civil Society Organization Artisanal Fishermen's Union Caleta Maitencillo In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

50,417.00

Civil Society Organization Artisanal Fishermen's Union Caleta Las Ventanas In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

50,417.00


Panguipulli Municipality In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

12,125.00


National Tourism Service (SERNATUR) In-kind Recurrentexpenditures

9,441.00

Total Co-Financing($) 9,708,732.00

Describe how any "Investment Mobilized" was identi�edAt the beginning of the PPG phase (November, 2019) the initial workshop was held to present the Project, de�ne next steps and to establish partnerships tosecure participation commitments. Prior to this activity, information was shared and possible pilot sites were visited for the purpose of assessing enablingconditions, meeting with possible key partners and with the communities. Halfway through the PPG period (January 27 and February 4, 2020) two workshopswere carried out, one with the institutions linked to the marine sector and the other with the institutions associated with land ecosystems (agriculture, publicworks, sanitary services, public property, social development, indigenous matters, NGO’s, etc). During these activities, progress in the development of the PRODOCwas shared, as well as the activities plan and progress toward de�ning the demonstration experiences. In these participative instances we applied the Project’sgovernance and management arrangement model for the implementation phase (Section VIII Governance and Management Arrangements / PRODOC); the linesof participation were presented and progress was made identifying sources of in-kind and grants co-nancing. ЀBecause of sanitary measures in response to theCovid 19 pandemic (beginning at the end of February), remote bilateral meetings were held with all the institutions -NGO’s, private companies, municipalities,representatives of the communities participating in the demonstration experiences- to agree on common objectives and activities, and negotiate co-�nancingthrough grants and in-kind contributions. Between April and June, at least 3 meetings were held with each of the partners (totalling more than 150 meetings), inaddition to carrying out follow-up actions via e-mail and other remote means of communication. The Project components, outcomes and activities in which thesepartners were invited to participate were organized by sector (Section IX Financial Planning and Annex 7 Stakeholder Engagement Plan). The roles and functionsidenti�ed for each partner were shared and agreed upon based on the intersection of the Project outcomes, targets and outputs and their sectorial policies, plans,strategies and instruments, for the purpose of emphasizing common work goals and related bene�ts (Section V Outcomes and Associations and Section VIProject Results Framework). These negotiations and consensus building resulted in obtaining letters of commitment and co-�nancing (Section IX Budget andAnnex 12 Co�nancing Agreement Letters). In-kind contributions totalling US$ 9,576,232 (98.6 %) and grants for US$ 132,500 (1.4%) were the types of co�nancingthat the Project secured for its implementation. Most of the in-kind contributions were secured from government institutions (99.4%) and grants were all securedfrom private companies.

D. Trust Fund Resources Requested by Agency(ies), Country(ies), Focal Area and the Programming of Funds

Agency Trust Fund Country Focal Area Programming of Funds Amount($) Fee($)

UNDP GET Chile Biodiversity BD STAR Allocation 2,300,000 218,500

Total Grant Resources($) 2,300,000.00 218,500.00

E. Non Grant Instrument

NON-GRANT INSTRUMENT at CEO Endorsement

Includes Non grant instruments? No

Includes re�ow to GEF? No

F. Project Preparation Grant (PPG)

Agency Trust Fund Country Focal Area Programming of Funds Amount($) Fee($)

UNDP GET Chile Biodiversity BD STAR Allocation 100,000 9,500

Total Project Costs($) 100,000.00 9,500.00

PPG Required false

PPG Amount ($)

100,000

PPG Agency Fee ($)

9,500

Core Indicators

Indicator 4 Area of landscapes under improved practices (hectares; excluding protected areas)

Ha (Expected at PIF)Ha (Expected at CEOEndorsement) Ha (Achieved at MTR) Ha (Achieved at TE)

100000.00 100000.00 0.00 0.00

Indicator 4.1 Area of landscapes under improved management to bene�t biodiversity (hectares, qualitative assessment, non-certi�ed)


100,000.00 100,000.00

Indicator 4.2 Area of landscapes that meets national or international third party certi�cation that incorporates biodiversity considerations (hectares)


Type/Name of Third Party Certi�cation

Indicator 4.3 Area of landscapes under sustainable land management in production systems


Indicator 4.4 Area of High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) loss avoided


Documents (Please upload document(s) that justi�es the HCVF)

Title Submitted

Indicator 5 Area of marine habitat under improved practices to bene�t biodiversity (excluding protected areas)


700.00

Indicator 5.1 Number of �sheries that meet national or international third party certi�cation that incorporates biodiversity considerations

Number (Expected at PIF)Number (Expected at CEOEndorsement) Number (Achieved at MTR) Number (Achieved at TE)

Type/name of the third-party certi�cation

Indicator 5.2 Number of Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) with reduced pollutions and hypoxia

Number (Expected at PIF)Number (Expected at CEOEndorsement) Number (achieved at MTR) Number (achieved at TE)

0 0 0 0

LME at PIF LME at CEO Endorsement LME at MTR LME at TE

Indicator 5.3 Amount of Marine Litter Avoided

Metric Tons (expected atPIF) Metric Tons (expected at CEO Endorsement) Metric Tons (Achieved at MTR) Metric Tons (Achieved at TE)

Indicator 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigated

Total Target Bene�t (At PIF) (At CEO Endorsement) (Achieved at MTR) (Achieved at TE)

Expected metric tons of CO₂e (direct) 89890 89890 0 0

Expected metric tons of CO₂e (indirect) 0 0 0 0

Indicator 6.1 Carbon Sequestered or Emissions Avoided in the AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use) sector


Expected metric tons of CO₂e (direct) 89890 89,890

Expected metric tons of CO₂e (indirect)

Anticipated start year of accounting 2021 2023

Duration of accounting 10 5

Indicator 6.2 Emissions Avoided Outside AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use) Sector


Expected metric tons of CO₂e (direct)

Expected metric tons of CO₂e (indirect)

Anticipated start year of accounting

Duration of accounting

Indicator 6.3 Energy Saved (Use this sub-indicator in addition to the sub-indicator 6.2 if applicable)

Total Target Bene�tEnergy (MJ) (AtPIF)

Energy (MJ) (At CEOEndorsement)

Energy (MJ) (Achieved atMTR)

Energy (MJ) (Achieved atTE)

Target Energy Saved(MJ)

Indicator 6.4 Increase in Installed Renewable Energy Capacity per Technology (Use this sub-indicator in addition to the sub-indicator 6.2 if applicable)

TechnologyCapacity (MW) (Expected atPIF)

Capacity (MW) (Expected at CEOEndorsement)

Capacity (MW) (Achieved atMTR)

Capacity (MW) (Achieved atTE)

Indicator 11 Number of direct bene�ciaries disaggregated by gender as co-bene�t of GEF investment

Number (Expected atPIF)

Number (Expected at CEOEndorsement) Number (Achieved at MTR) Number (Achieved at TE)

Female 500 401

Male 500 933

Total 1000 1334 0 0

Part II. Project Justi�cation

1a. Project Description

DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF

1a. Project Description.

1) The global environmental and/or adaptation problems, root causes and barriers that need to be addressed:

The global environmental problem, root causes and barriers that need to be addressed are in alignment with the PIF. Changes to be noted include (speci�cparagraphs within Section III. Development Challenges of the UNDP-PRODOC are specied): Ѐi) relationships of the productive sector with the natural capitalwere described in detail (paragraphs 3 to 6); ii) links between biodiversity and ecosystem services with human wellbeing were described in more detail(paragraphs 10 to 12); iii) description of enabling conditions for the implementation of Economic Instruments for Biodiversity Conservaiton (IECB) wasincorporated (paragraph 18); iv) Chile’s vulnerability to climate change and current policy instruments for climate change mitigation and adaptation weredetailed (paragraph 22).

2) The baseline scenario and any associated baseline projects: The baseline was updated, incorporating the most recent laws, policies, instruments and initiatives promoted by Chile which currently relate or will relate to theProject objectives during its implementation phase. 3) The proposed alternative scenario with a description of the Project Outcome and Component.

The original components of the Project remain practically the same, with just some phrasing modi�cations in Component 1.

Regarding the scope of each Component:

Component 1: The PRODOC details more precisely the governance model that is expected to be implemented (National Technical Committee and RegionalTechnical Comittes). The PRODOC also outlines in detail the digital tools to be developed to promote the exchange of information, the use of IECBs bydifferent stakeholders and IECBs’ monitoring. This will strengthen the institutional frameworks and the economic instruments to manage and conservebiodiversity.

Component 2: This component keeps the focus on developing pilot demonstration experiences of IECB with a focus on Ecosystem Services Retribution (ESR)and Biodiversity Offset, and adds two instruments that were not consider before: the Derecho Real de Conservación (DRC) and a Public Certi�cation System ofactivities, practices or sites, for their contribution to biodiversity conservation and to maintaining or recovering ecosystem services. A more detaileddescription is incorporated to explain how IECB relate to other instruments, policies and approaches (e.g. Nature-based Solutions -SbN-, Nationally DeterminedContributions -NdC-). Thorough descriptions are provided about ecosystem services subject to the ESR schemes in terrestrial ecosystems (focused on ruralpotable water systems -APR-) and coastal-marine ecosystems (focused on AMERB/ECMPO area based units). Biodiversity offsets demonstration experiencesare described in more detail, including their implementation in the same sites where the ESR pilots in terrestrial and marine ecosystems will be implemented.This approach strengthens both demonstration experiences.

Component 3: Changes to this component improve the original descriptions presented in the PIF, which provide more clarity to the scope of thecommunications strategy, its objectives, target audiences and relation with the other Project components.

4) Alignment with GEF focal area and /or impact program strategies.

Regarding the allignment of the Project with the GEF focal areas and program strategies, the programme directives that the Project contributes to, remain thesame. All programme directives (1-1, 1-3, 1-5), have been updated in their descriptions regarding how the Project contributes to each, consistent to otherchanges in the Components narrative.

5) Incremental/Additional Cost Reasoning And Expected Contributions From The Baseline, The GEFTF, LDCF, SCCF, And Co-Financing

The PRODOC describes in more detail the direct contributions from the Project to support the implementation of the Service of Biodiversity and ProtectedAreas (SBAP). Chile is advancing towards approving the Proposed Legislation for establishing the SBAP, to safeguard biodiversity in the National System ofProtected Areas and outside protected areas. The proposed legislation includes a section about IECBs which will be then legally recognized as conservationtools by the SBAP once it is created. To contribute to the future implementation of the SBAP, the Project will create guidelines to implement IECBs (Component1) and will pilot them in demonstration experiences in terrestrial and coastal marine ecosystems (Component 2). Thus, the Project will nancially Ѐcontributewith an investment of US$ 705,603 to establish the enabling conditions to effectively implement the law in those aspects related to IECB (including technicalguidelines for implementation, implementing regulations and capacity building of decision makers) leveraging sources for US$2,962,819 as cofunding for thesame objectives.

6) Global Environmental Bene�ts (GEFTF) And/Or Adaptation Bene�ts (LDCF/SCCF)

The coastal-marine areas that will be subject to an improvement of management practices increased their scope from 700 hectares (PIF) to 2,485.47 ha inthe PRODOC. The subindicator that will be assessed to comply with the target of core indicator 4 (subindicator 4.4. Area of High Conservation Value Forest(HCVF) loss avoided to the subindicator) was replaced by subindicator 4.1. Area of landscapes under improved management to bene�t biodiversity.

7) Innovativeness, sustentabilities and potencial for scaling up:

The content of this section was updated in paragraphs 138-145 of the PRODOC. It provides thorough descriptions of actions of innovation, sustainability andscaling up. Six additional elements were described: i) the development of digital information systems to facilitate access and encounters between differentstakeholders in IECB application; ii) development of standardized methodologies for ecosystem services evaluation with pilot applications, including studiesof return on investment in biodiversity and ecosystem services, to establish precedents for their inclusion in sectorial and private sector management; iii)development of territorial intervention models to conserve and restore ecosystem services as part of IECB implementation and designed as bankable greenprojects that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation (NbS models); iv) complementarity of IECBs and how the can be applied together in thesame territory (e.g. ESR scheme can be applied with DRC mechanisms, biodiversity offsets and certication) Ѐ in different ecosystems (terrestrial, coastal,marine); v) contributions from IECB implementation to sectorial policies, plans and strategies (i.e. forestry-agriculture-livestock, environment, public works,sanitary services, tourism) which will support replication; vi) implementation of IECB in demonstration experiences will be made in partnership with diverselocal and regional stakeholders (e.g. Rural Drinking Water Committees -CAPR-, shermen Ѐassociations, indigenous communities) covering different naturalresources governance structures to generate meaningful learnings for scaling-up.

1b. Project Map and Coordinates

Please provide geo-referenced information and map where the project interventions will take place.

The geographic location, represented in the map of the sites for development of the demonstration experiences, is presented by ecosystem and byinstrument. 1. IECB demonstration experiences in Ecosystem Services Retribution /ESR) in a land ecosystem:

Figure 2. Map of the Los Ríos Region (Map of Chile, upper left), with the position of the ESR Mashue and the ESR Liquiñe demonstration experiences anddistribution of watersheds for soil and native forest state of conservation studies.

1.1. i. ESR IECB Demonstration experiences in land ecosystems, site at Mashue, Region of Los Ríos, Province of Ranco, La Unión Township, locality ofMashue. ii. IECB experience in Derecho Real de Conservación in land ecosystem in the Region of Los Ríos, Province of Ranco, La Unión Township, locality of Mashue. Figure 3. Mashue waterhed

1.1. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in land ecosystems, site at Liquiñe, Region Los Ríos, Province of Valdivia, Panguipulli Township, locality of Liquiñe.

Figure 4. Liquiñe watershed

2. IECB demonstration experiences with feasibility for development of Derecho Real de Conservación in continental aquatic ecosystem (wetlands): 2.1. Metropolitan Region, Alto Maipo Wetlands

Figure 5. El Yeso watershed

2.2. Region of Concepción, Urban Wetlands at Rocuant Andalien (Urban wetlands) Figure 6. Location of the Rocuant Andalien wetland

2.3. Region of La Araucanía, Queule Wetlands (Rural Wetlands/indigenous communities) Figure 7. Location of Queule River W

3. IECB demonstration experiences in Ecosystem Services Retribution, marine and coastal ecosystem. 3.1. Figure 8. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in marine and coastal ecosystem located in the Areas for Management and Exploitation of BentonicResources (AMERB) in the Region of Valparaíso, Puchuncavi Township, in the Maitencillo AMERB’s. This DE focuses on supporting the creation of no-takezones to protect biodiversi

3.2. Figure 9. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in marine and coastal ecosystem located in the Areas for Management and Exploitation of BentonicResources (AMERB) in the Region of Valparaíso, Puchuncavi Township, Ventanas AMERB. This DE focuses on supporting the creation of no-take zones toprotect biodiversity

3.3. Figure 10. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in marine and coastal ecosystem located in the Indigenous Peoples Coastal Marine Areas (ECMPO) inthe Region of Los Lagos, Ancud Township, ECMPO Caulin. This DE focuses on supporting the creation of no-take zones to protect biodiversity.

3.4. Figure 11. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in marine and coastal ecosystem located in the Areas for Management and Exploitation of BentonicResources (AMERB) in the Region of Los Lagos, Ancud Township, AMERB of Chepu. This DE focuses on supporting the creation of no-take zones to protectbiodiversity.

1c. Child Project?

If this is a child project under a program, describe how the components contribute to the overall program impact.

N/A

2. StakeholdersSelect the stakeholders that have participated in consultations during the project identication phase:Ḁ

Civil Society Organizations Yes

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Yes

Private Sector Entities Yes

If none of the above, please explain why:

Please provide the Stakeholder Engagement Plan or equivalent assessment.

In addition, provide a summary on how stakeholders will be consulted in project execution, the means and timing of engagement, how informationwill be disseminated, and an explanation of any resource requirements throughout the project/program cycle to ensure proper and meaningfulstakeholder engagement

The Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Annex 7 of the PRODOC) identies Ѐand describes the participative process that each stakeholder went through during theProject PPG Phase (inception and midterm PPG workshops, bilateral meetings for reaching participation agreements and resolving queries; as well as thevalidation workshop (Activity Report). In addition, it explains the objective, the participation mechanism, the stakeholders map, and the role and functionexpected of each partner during Project implementation. Furthermore, a gender participation plan (Annex 8 of the PRODOC) is included in order to safeguardthe participation of women and an indigenous peoples plan framework will be developed before project implementation to safeguard cultural pertinencethroughout the Project, especially in the demonstration experiences and training activities. In the section on Financial Planning and Management (IX) of thePRODOC the activity is explained in detail as well as the outcomes to which the stakeholders will contribute. Participation during the PPG phase contributed to identifying lines of action for the different stakeholders within the Project framework; it also made itpossible to obtain participation commitments dened Ѐin agreement letters that specify co-nancing Ѐ(Section X Total Budget and Workplan and Annex 12 ofthe PRODOC). Furthermore, the Stakeholders Engagement Plan incorporates the Project inception activities for involving its partners and contributes to theimplementation of several risk management measures considered in the SESP (Annex 4 of the PRODOC) including a consultation to indigenous peoples forsome demonstration experiences (ESR scheme in ECMPO Caulin, Mashue and Liquiñe). The Stakeholders Engagement Plan presents a participation timeline,and the monitoring and evaluation mechanism (Annex 3 of the PRODOC) will allow an oversight of the Stakeholders Engagement Plan (Annex 7 of thePRODOC) and the Gender Action Plan (Annex 8 of the PRODOC). The Project applies a multi-stakeholder, multi-sector and multi-level (national, regional and local) governance and participation focus. It establishes agovernance model and management arrangements (section VIII for details) through a National Technical Committee and Regional Committees in the Regionswhere demonstration experiences are carried out; in the NTC and the RTC’s public institutions participate and this is a consultation entity. Both committeeshave broad operational instances, where the communities, civil society (NGO’s, Foundations and others), private enterprise, academia and other stakeholdersmay participate. Frequency of meetings is determined in the Multi Year Work Plan (Annex 2 of the PRODOC), with a minimum of 4 meetings per year; however,depending on activities, the output and progress toward outcomes, frequency could vary depending on strategic management measures. The Project includes a communication strategy and capacity building (Component 3 / Section VI Project Results Framework) through dialogue and reachingagreements, as well as knowledge management for strengthening capabilities, in direct support of appropriate funcioning and operation of the stakeholdersparticipation arrangements.

Participation of the private sector has been ensured through activities carried out during the design phase; as well as governance and managementarrangements for Project implementation (Section VIII and Annex 7 of the PRODOC); regarding participation of public institutions, we dened Ѐthe outcome,output and activity in which private enterprise would participate. Other details are described in point 4 of this document. The Project Management Unit includes a Macro-regional Technical Coordinator (Los Ríos and Los Lagos Regions) who among other functions will safeguardthe appropriate participation and commitment of the institutions and other stakeholders. The Project has established the function of ConservationGuarantors, who in the case of the land demonstration experiences will be the Rural Potable Water Committees, and in the case of the marine experiences, willbe the Capital Azul and Costa Humbolt Foundations. The Guarantors will fulll Ѐthe role and carry out the functions dened Ѐduring efforts carried out with thebene�ciary communities and the �shermen’s associations in order to ensure appropriate participation, commitment, and activities development (see Annex 6of the PRODOC for more details). During the PPG phase, the bene�ciary communities established an explicit participation commitment. In the case of Caulinbecause it has an ECMPO, a consultation process will be carried out to ensure proper participation (for more detail, see Annex 7 Stakeholders EngagementPlan, Annex 4 Social and Environmental Screening Procedure, Annex 5 UNDP Risks Register).Select what role civil society will play in the project:

Consulted only;

Member of Advisory Body; Contractor; Yes

Co-nancier; ЀYes

Member of project steering committee or equivalent decision-making body; Yes

Executor or co-executor;

Other (Please explain) Yes

3. Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment

Provide the gender analysis or equivalent socio-economic assesment.

The Project has a gender assessment and gender plan with a budget allocated for its implementation (USD$39,000) (Annex 8 of the PRODOC). This wasachieved through eld Ѐ visits to sites where demonstration experiences are to be developed; through interviews with women and men members of theparticipating organizations; with male and female employees of related public bodies; through reviewing bibliographic sources related to gender, biodiversityconservation and economic and nancial Ѐinstruments and the situation of women in the marine resources administration regimes incorporated in the Project.In addition, the consultant participated in the workshops implemented during the PPG phase . A description of the gender situation in Chile begins with a women’s population of 8,972,014 (51% of the total population) and a femininity index of 104.3 ,concentrated mainly in the age range of 15 to 59 years (63%), with a life expectancy for women of 82.8 years and an overall fertility rate in women of 1.3offspring. A total of 2.4% of women are below the line of extreme poverty, and 6.6% below the poverty line . According to CEPAL , the participation rate ofChilean women in economic activity is 49% (for men it is 71.6%). The National Institute of Statistics’ (INE) “Gender and Employment Report” indicates that inthe year 2016, 37% of all the women who declared themselves to be outside the labor force indicated that their reason for this was permanent familycircumstances, such as child care and/or caring for other dependents, whereas the reason given by most of the unemployed men was studies. According tothe 2017 Census, those jobs most frequently held by women were associated with child care, care and services to others, such as the areas of activityinvolved with lodging and food services, teaching and human health activities. The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index places Chile in 57place among 153 countries, with an overall index of 0.723 . The greatest gab is to be found in political participation, followed by economic participation andopportunities. The Gender Inequality Index shows that the gender gap in Chile is 2.3 times the average observed in those countries with a very high level ofhuman development, placing it in 72 place in terms of gender inequality among 189 countries. The challenge is to overcome gaps both in women’s politicalparticipation and their access to economic resources, since women in Chile participate less in the labor force and also receive less income for the same workas men. Power relations and inequality are manifest, with gender differences in regards to access to, use and control of natural resources, because ofeconomic, social, institutional and legal limitations, such as for example access to land. The bibliography also indicates that women are assuming more responsibility in protecting biodiversity but without participating equitably in access to andcontrol of the resources. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1993) recognizes the decisive function that women play in the conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity, and arms Ѐ the need for their full participation at all levels of formulation and execution of policies whose aim is conservation ofbiodiversity, underlining relevant challenges in the actions to be dened, Ѐconsidering their traditional participation from within their role of overseeing familynutrition. As for the water resource, the lack of attention to gender issues has led to women not being recognized as interested parties and stakeholders regardingrights over water and its management, as well as undervaluing their abilities, knowledge and contributions in managing this resource . Regarding themarine-coastal sector resources, women’s participation in shing Ѐis minor and basically invisible, although for the year 2014 it is estimated that nearly half ofthe 120 millon people worldwide who work in the �shing sector, in capture or in the value chain, were women , enduring working conditions that did notressemble what could be considered decent; at the same time, available statistics help to hide women’s participation in these activities. This has led to thefact that in �shery policies, little atention is given to women and the gender dimension. The FAO study carried out in Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Perúdraws similar conclusions. They point out that women associated with the shing Ѐand aquiculture sectors fulll Ѐmost signicant Ѐroles in the value chain, sincethey are involved in preparing shing Ѐtackle, capture, receiving the catch, processing and sale. Therefore, they in fact constitute a signicant Ѐpart of the workforce, and their number and qualitative importance is vastly superior to what the available data suggests. Furthermore, the sources indicate that for the mostpart, women who labor in shing Ѐand aquiculture must face working conditions inferior to what could be considered decent. Both activities present high levelsof informality, affecting especially women, mostly heads of family, and this can be seen in the predominance of part-time work, limited access to safety andsocial protections, a low level of associativity and limited access to goods and services for developing their activity.

[1]

[2] [3]

[4] [5][6]

th[7]

nd

[8]

[9]

[10]

Regarding natural resource management by women in Chile, the revision that was carried out did not uncover data indicating women’s participation inconservation experiences. However, the information available regarding the Environment Ministry, both at its legal representation and in its coordination ofEnvironmental Protection Fund (FPA) initiatives , indicates that on the national level there is a larger proportion of women to men between the years 2016and 2019. Regarding gender, ecosystem services and economic instruments for biodiversity conservation (IECB), no information was found. For this reason, a genderanalysis was carried out on resource or territorial organizations and/or administrative regimes that will participate in the Project’s demonstration experiences,including the following: Areas for Management and Exploitation of Bentonic Resources (AMERB), Rural Potable Water Committees (CAPR), Bentonic ResourceManagement Committee (Management Committee as bene�ciary of capabilities transfer), and Indigenous Peoples’ Coastal-Marine Space (ECMPO). In Chile, of the 89,577 people registered as small-scale shermen Ѐin 2018, 23.7% were women, working as seaweed harvesters (19,204) or in shing Ѐitself(4,868). In the Valparaíso and Los Lagos Regions where the Project is being implemented, the presence of women seaweed harvesters is notable, reaching9.1% and 35.3% respectively . In the year 2018, there were 1,543 organizations registered in the Small-Scale Fisheries Listing (RPA) , 42 of which weremade up exclusively of women, 1,081 mixed, and 420 with only male members. However, out of a total of 10,748 women members of some organization, only1,094 hold a directorship position. Of these, 290 are presidents, 376 treasurers and 428 secretaries. This clearly shows the low level of participation of womenin leadership positions and decision-making in this sector. As for activities connected with or in support of small-scale shing, Ѐsuch as preparation of shing Ѐtasks (repairing tackle and gear), equipment maintenance,bait preparation, lleting, Ѐhauling and shelling, SERNAPESCA indicates that, for the year 2011, of the total people participating in these activities (13,813),around 23.1% (3,197) were women and 76.9% were men. Although men continue to make up the majority in these activities, in some areas women constitute ahigh percentage, such as in preparing bait and shelling, reaching 19.6% (529) and 39.7% (1,389) respectively. In addition, support activities such as repairing�shing tackle and hauling are the main tasks that women perform, with 185 and 293 women for each of these. Between the years 2014-2018, a total of 550 AMERB were recorded as functioning, and they are responsible for 370 small-scale shing Ѐorganizations. Ofthese, 336 are mixed organizations, 208 have only men members, and 5 are made up of only women. In the Regions of Project intervention, there are 11 mixedAMERB’s in the Region of Valparaíso and 159 in the Los Lagos Region, there being no AMERB’s registered with only women members. According to thereports issued by SUBPESCA, SERNAPESCA and the DOP since 2010, women’s participation in traditionally male activities has increased. For example, in thecategory of �sherman, there was an increase of 27.5% of women between the years 2010 and 2018. Despite this, the AMERB’s and Management Committeeshave still mostly male members. A gender assessment carried out in the year 2004 by the Water Works Department (DOH) determined that, in the Rural Potable Water Programs (CAPR),organized in Committees and Cooperatives, men have historically been in charge of leadership tasks and women of administrative work, and only 32.5% of thetotal of leaders were women . Through training and other measures, such as modifying CAPR and Cooperatives’ Statutes, betwen the years 2008 and 2016the percentage of women’s participation in leadership roles grew from 38.6% to 45.6%. In the Los Ríos Region, where some of the Project’s demonstrationexperiences are located, the percentage of men in CAPR directorships was 54.6%, and women 45.4% in 2016. In 2008, Law 20,249, known as the Lafkenche Law, was ratied Ѐfor establishing the Indigenous Peoples’ Coastal-Marine Space (ECMPO). Up to December2019, there were 93 applications for ECMPO status in Chile, nine of which include an approved use agreement and administration plan, one in the AraucaníaRegion, and eight in Los Lagos . Up until May 2019, there were 255 indigenous communities applying for ECMPO status, of which 42.7% had womenpresidents (109) and 57.3% were presided by men (146) Regarding the situation of women in the sites where Project demonstration experiences will be developed, this varies largely depending upon the particularcircumstances, according to the type of organization under cosideration as well as the characteristics of the organizations’ intervention environment and thecontext in which they nd Ѐthemselves. In the marine-coastal sector, conditions are the same as in the shing Ѐactivity itself, which is predominantly male,despite a signicant Ѐparticipation of women in complementary or related activities. In the land and continental aquatic sector, which by denition Ѐinvolvesrural spaces, they have their own forms of peasant family agriculture, where women are mainly occupied with activities inside the home, with minor sales ofexcedents from their domestic production. Finally, in the ECMPO, specic Ѐ cultural conditions will be found regarding the gender construct, in this caseassociated with the mapuche-williche tradition.

[11]

[12] [13]

[14]

[15]

[16][17].

As for the speci�c situation in each site, the following is of interest: Maitencillo Small-Scale Fishing Port AMERB: This is a seaside resort in the Puchuncaví Township, Valparaíso Region. Its total population is 2,228 (1,167 menand 1,061 women) . The main activities in this location are tourism and shing. ЀThe Maitencillo Small-Scale Fisnermen’s Union is located here, with 36members, none of whom are women. Since the year 1999 they have AMERB status. In 2013 a marine reserve was established within their management area,for the purpose of improving protection of and increasing its main natural resources, such as abalone, limpets and a variety of rock sh. Ѐ This initiativeoperates through payment of an ESR via philanthropy with the intermediation of the Capital Azul Foundation and support from the Chilean Catholic University(PUC). The Fishermen’s Union has demonstrated a strong organizational trajectory and strong leadership, as well as a strategic vision for projecting theiractivity. Within this scenario, women have a secondary role that is not directly related to the organization, although they do participate in some of the Union’sactivities. For example, they have an area for direct sales of products they extract from the sea, where the shermen Ѐthemselves and their families can sellthese products, and women are involved in this activity. In addition, for the last 25 years they have maintained the same administrative secretary, a woman,and this has made it possible to maintain constant support in management and capabilities transfers that go beyond the temporality of directorships. Las Ventanas Small-Scale Fishermen’s Port AMERB: This locality has a total population of 8,314, of whom 4,202 are men and 4,112 are women (Ibid). TheCaleta Ventanas Small-Scale Fishermen’s Union is located here, and is in charge of an AMERB, established in 1987 with 65 members, two of whom arewomen, although they have no signicant Ѐparticipation nor is their participation obvious in tasks related or complementary to AMERB resource extractionwork. In 2017 a marine reserve was established within their management area for the purpose of strengthening the area’s biodiversity; this initiative operatesin the same manner as the Maitencillo AMERB described above.

Mashue CAPR: According to the Mashue CAPR, the local population is around 700 persons (50% would be women). Around 24% of this population are underthe poverty line ; there are two indigenous organizations, one Neighborhood Board and an association of small-scale entrepreneurs. Both women and menparticipate in all of these organizations. In general they are peasant family farmers, with minor sales of excedents. In summer, women work as seasonal farmlaborers. The Mashue CAPR has 176 members. Of these, 67% identify with the mapuche-williche indigenous group and 40% are women. Both women andmen participate in Assemblies, the directorship is all men, and they have a woman secretary for administrative support. Women do participate in some CAPRactivities (managing the nursery, teaching environmental education). This CAPR has pioneered in the implementation of an ESR model since the year 2013. Atthe present time, they have a nursery of native species for the purpose of creating plant resources for reforestation of the watershed. The rst Ѐlandholdingwhere this initiative was implemented belongs to a woman. In addition, through an agreement with an educational establishment, they have designed anenvironmental education program directed by a female teacher who is a member of the CAPR. At present (2019) they are involved in the UN REDD+ Projectimplemented by CONAF. Their directorship has 6 members, one of whom is a woman. Liquiñe CAPR: This locality has a population of 875 inhabitants, 445 men and 430 women. It is located in a pre-Andean tourism zone with hot springs ofvolcanic origen, generating signicant Ѐeconomic activities in which both men and women participate, organized into a Rural Tourism Network called SieteLagos (Seven Lakes). The CAPR has around 600 members, some of whom are women. Their directorship consists of six members, one of whom is a woman. They have two female administrative secretaries. At present (2019) they participate in the UN REDD+ Project implemented by CONAF. Caulín ECMPO: They have a total population of approximately 833, where nearly 50% are probably women. About 32% of its inhabitants identify with anindigenous people. Both men and women carry out economic and subsistence activities such as beach gathering, agriculture and livestock, which sometimesconstitute sources of income for their families, in which women and men participate. Among the most important are harvesting pelillo seaweed, wherewomen participate. The Huenque Caulín and Wente Kaulin Indigenous Communities, who have applied for ECMPO status, belong to the mapuche-willichecultural tradition. The rst Ѐhas 25 members (13 women), and represent 25 families. The Wente Kaulin Community has 27 members (20 women), representing16 families. The culturally determined uses proposed for the ECMPO include the following: beach clamming; exploitation and gathering of seaweed; small-scale �shing; commercial diving; tourism, and local cultural festivities and practices, some of which involve women. Furthermore, women participate in thecommunities’ directorships and participate equally in their assemblies. Chepu AMERB: They have a total population of approximately 476 , and according to the Fisheries Census , there are a total of about 75 small-scaleshermen Ѐat the Chepu �shermen’s port. Chepu’s Small-Scale Fishermen’s Union called Mar Adentro, beneciaries Ѐof the Chepu AMERB administration, has atotal of 35 members, 34 men and 1 woman. Among their members are people of indigenous descent. In this respect, and considering the fact that each small-scale �sherman has a family of about 4 members, we are dealing with approximately 140 people, all direct beneciaries Ѐof the Chepu Pilot Project. Although

[18]

[19]

[20] [21]

the locality’s most signicant Ѐactivity is small-scale shing, Ѐit is true that its inhabitants are also farmers, forestry workers and gatherers, being part of thebroad peasant family farming sector in which both women and men paticipate; and for several years they have been carrying out small-scale tourisminitiatives. Summary of the gender analysis and evaluation: (i) Maitencillo and Ventanas AMERB’s: Although there is generalized and growing recognition of women’s role,it can be felt that this is not completely recognized and accepted, both from a gender point of view and a sectorial perspective. In the case of theorganizations that have implemented IECB’s, since these organizations are under the leadership of men, it has been their voice and experience that has takenprecedent, leaving women, who fulll Ѐa support role in union tasks, excluded from preservation and appreciation of this experience. (ii) Mashue and LiquiñeCAPR’s: Even when women’s participation in these organizations (assemblies) is recognized, they do not occupy directorship positions, and rarelyadministrative positions. In the case of the organizations that have implemented IECB’s, since it is the men who lead the organizations, it is their voice andexperience that is heard, leaving women, who fulll Ѐa support role or have been pioneers in associated activities, relegated to a secondary position in thepreservation and appreciation of this experience. (iii) Caulín ECMPO and Chepu AMERB: more direct knowledge is required of this situation and theparticipation of women, in order to appreciate speci�cally how, within the cultural de�nitions of gender, they might participate in the ECMPO and the AMERB. Identi�ed gender constraints: (i) Barrier 1: The participation of women in the IECB, their role, experience and knowledge are not visible and are not perceived asa contribution in the application of these instruments. Neither the gender role nor the participation of women is known as an habilitating factor for IECBdevelopment and the benets Ѐthese might bring to them. (ii) Barrier 2: The role, contribution and knowledge of women in the organizations and/or regimensfor the administration of resources or territories are not known nor have they been made visible, the same can be said for the benets Ѐthey obtain from them.No data is available for projecting the role of women from these organizations in IECB implementation nor how these could bene�t and/or harm them. No datais available for determining how the participation of women in these organizations might constitute an IECB habilitating factor. (iii) Barrier 3: domesticresponsibilities and care are an important part of women’s work load, and could constitute a constraint if the initiatives to be carried out do not take this factorinto consideration and adapt to it. The Project has a gender monitoring and evaluation plan that will allow to oversee fulllment Ѐof the gender plan (See details in Annex 3 of the PRODOC);identication Ѐof gender-based risks (Annex 5 of the PRODOC) and the SESP (Annex 4 of the PRODOC) that describes management measures for the risksidentied Ѐ included in the PRODOC. Implementation of the gender plan (Annex 8 of the PRODOC) and the Indigenous Peoples Plan Framework (to bedeveloped before Project implementation) will be supported by a consultancy and the terms of reference of project personnel and technical consultancies(Annex 6 of the PRODOC).

[1] Reports of the consultancy on gender and social and environmental issues, Design Phase of GEF Project on economic instruments, Gloría Ochoa, 2019-2020.

[2] Number of women for each 100 men.

[3] Chile’s Population and Household Census, National Institute of Statistics, 2017.

[4] Ministry for Social Development (MIDESO) 2018a. Poverty and Income Distribution. Presentation of results. CASEN 2017.

[5] CEPAL, 2018. Annual Statistics on Latin America and the Caribbean. UN. CEPAL. Statistics Department.

[6]INE, 2017. Gender and Employment. Statistical Focus. National Institute of Statistics, May 2017. At:http://historico.ine.cl/genero/�les/estadisticas/pdf/documentos/enfoque-estadistico-genero-y-empleo.pdf

[7] World Economic Forum, 2019. The Global Gender Gap Report 2020.

[8] Gender and Water Alliance, et al. 2006. Effective Transversalization of the gender focus in water management to ensure sustainable means of life: fromguidelines to practice

[9] FAO, 2016b. Worldwide state of �shing and aquiculture. Contribution to food security and nutrition for all. Rome. On line at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3720s.pdf

[10] FAO, 2016. Women’s role in shing Ѐand aquiculture in Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Perú. Integration, systematization. And national analysis of studies.Final Report. FAO RLC. Santiago, Chile. On line at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5774s.pdf

[11]Environment Ministry (EM). 2019. Environmental Protection Fund.

[12] SERNAPESCA, SUBPESCA and DOP, 2018. Women and Men in the Fisheries and Aquiculture Sector in Chile 2018. On line at:http://www.subpesca.cl/portal/618/articles-102848_recurso_1.pdf

[13] SERNAPESCA, 2019. Small-Scale Fishermen’s Listing.

[14]SERNAPESCA, 2011. Report on Assessment of men and women participating in auxilliary activities in the country’s small-scale shing Ѐ ports. Chile.National Fisheries Department (SERNAPESCA), Chile.

[15] DOH. 2016. Systematization Report. Results of the PMG Commitment on Gender Focus. Rural Potable Water Program.

[16] SUBPESCA, 2019. Response to application AH002T0003196.

[17] SUBPESCA, 2019b. Status of ECMPO applications being processed (Dicember 2019), at: http://www.subpesca.cl/portal/616/w3-propertyvalue-50834.html

[18] INE, 2019. Map services, 2017 Census. At: http://ine-chile.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=bc3cfbd4feec49699c11e813ae9a629f

[19] According to the Water Works Department data base, included in the “List of Rural Potable Water Systems in Chile”, the Mashue Rural Potable WaterCommittee was inaugurated in 2013 and the number of bene�ciaries is estimated at 524 for the year 2014 (DOH, 2014)

[20] National Institute of Statistics of Chile, Population and Household Census 2002. https://redatam-ine.ine.cl/redbin/RpWebEngine.exe/Portal?BASE=CENSO_2002&lang=esp

[21] First National Fishing and Aquiculture Census 2008- 2009, National Institute of Statistics of Chile.

Does the project expect to include any gender-responsive measures to address gender gaps or promote gender equality and women empowerment?

Yes Closing gender gaps in access to and control over natural resources; Yes

Improving women's participation and decision making Yes

Generating socio-economic bene�ts or services or women Yes

Does the project’s results framework or logical framework include gender-sensitive indicators?

http://www.subpesca.cl/portal/618/articles-102848_recurso_1.pdf

https://redatam-ine.ine.cl/redbin/RpWebEngine.exe/Portal?BASE=CENSO_2002&lang=esp

4. Private sector engagement

Elaborate on the private sector's engagement in the project, if any.

The private sector participates in the Broad NTC and the Broad RTC’s (Section VIII Governance and Management Arrangements); the private sector is includedin the development of guidelines and other tools; it will be bene�ciary of strengthening capabilities; and it will participate in the development of thedemonstration experiences contributing experience from its sector’s point of view. The role and functions of the private sector in this Project are described indetail in Annex 7 (Stakeholders Engagement Plan) and in the case of those companies that presented letters of agreement, their commitments are describedin Section IX (Financial Planning and Management), in Section X (Total Budget and Workplan) and in Annex 12 (Co�nancing Agreement Letters). The Project expects to develop IECB experiences of Derecho Real de Conservación (DRC) where the private sector would participate directly, where these arefeasible. Participation in the development of the remaining IECB mechanisms is key because of the role that the private sector fullls Ѐin the development ofinvestment projects, within the SEIA framework, and appropriate offsets, as well as their experience regarding best practices certications Ѐand the applicationof standards. Furthermore, it is expected that companies from the mining and port sectors will participate in the development and application of themethodological guidelines for offsets in the marine sector. As for the development of the ESR mechanisms, participation of the forestry companies and othersthat impact natural resource management is key; in order to accompany these efforts and be beneciaries Ѐ in the development of ecosystem servicesassessment studies and return on investment studies for management of water resources, as part of the forestry, public works and sanitary services sectors. Development of the nancing Ѐstrategy includes articulating IECB’s with Corporate Social Responsibility actions and with the actions of private entities in keysectors that affect biodiversity and ecosystem services, or that seek to contribute to conservation, and other secondary bene�ts from IECB application. During the PPG phase, the Project established a participation agreement letter with some companies and expects to develop additional agreements movingforward and during the Project implementation phase.

5. Risks to Achieving Project Objectives

Elaborate on indicated risks, including climate change, potential social and environmental risks that might prevent the project objectives from being achieved, and,if possible, the proposed measures that address these risks at the time of project implementation.(table format acceptable):

During the PPG phase, some possible risks were identied Ѐ(see details in Annex 5 of the PRODOC), as well as others remaining from the application of the Socialand Environmental Screening Procedure (SESP) (Annex 4 of the PRODOC). In the following table, details of the risks and management measures are given for theimplementation phase: Table 1. Summary of Project risks and management measures

Description Risk Treatment / Management Measures1 Change in the national gover

nment (2022); in regional andmunicipal governments (2021) could generate changes inpolicy priorities and reassessing the allocation of institutional human and budgetary resources, affectingparticipation and governance,implementation, and the levelof achievement of Project targets and objective. Probability: 3Impact: 3Risk: Moderate

Implementation of agreements for institutional participation through the implementation of the stakeholders participation plan and of the agreed-upon institutionaland governance arrangement (NTC – RTC’s) .

Highest level of public inter-institutional management. Implementation of the Project’s communications strategy with focus on partnersand results; e�cient implementation and M&E of the work plan and progress toward outcomes achievement. Establishment and operation of the national and regional technical committees, focused on safeguarding participation, the governance model and the functions and targets de�ned with the institutions. Application of the monitoring and evaluation mechanism focused on participation; on continuous improvement of management; on the development and achievement of outputs and targets. Sectorial and bi-lateral inter-institutional management, focused on articulating IECB’s with policies, plans, strategies and instruments in order to stimulate appropriation and involvement. Implementation of the plan for strengthening capabilities.

Actions for positioning the Project during early execution and administration by the National Project Direction and by the PMU, with the new national and regionalauthorities, together with the UNDP Country O�ce, in order to present the Project, its progress, and establish measures related to the new government program towhich the Project can contribute.

2 The social movement in Chileand the process of constitutional change could weaken the Project’s organization, governance, participation, implementation of actions on the regional and local levels and thedevelopment of the demonstration experiences, affecting proper continuity in the development of outputs and progress toward ful�llment of targets. Probability: 2Impact: 3Risk: Moderate

The Project through direct communications actions with the institutional and private strategic partners, the communities and others, will apply actions for monitoring the state of the situation; it will implement measures for strengthening management, governance, participation in developing the demonstration experiences and activities for strengthening capabilities; it will implement measures pertinent to the state of the situation that favor progress toward achievement of outcomes. The Project will strengthen actions conducive to conict Ѐprevention and management.

3 Presence of health or naturalthreats that could affect Project execution andprogress toward achievement of outcomes. Probability: 2Impact: 3Risk: Moderate

If necessary, measures will be implemented for participation and agreements, such as: remote working system; institutional articulation management; compensatory measures for strengthening the achievement of outcomes. The Project will apply the norms and measures imposed by the national health authority, by the EM and by the UNDP. The budget includes costs for materials to limit the spread of the virus. The Project will not promote activities that put people’s health at risk. Protocols will be drafted for remote activities; implementation of remote communication measures / communication on line (Zoom, teams, Skype, WhatsApp, etc.); as well as biosecurity protocols for in o�ce work, among others.

Health protection supplies will be available in a timely manner. All Project personnel and strategic partners will be trained in health norms by theHealth Authority, the EM and the UNDP. The Plan for strengthening capabilities will be implemented in self-learning modules and through an e-learning system.

4 Risk 1 /SESP. Within Component 2 (IECBs demonstration experiences), there is a risk that as a result of IECBs implementation, marginalized indig

A Stakeholders Engagement Plan (PRODOC Annex 7) and governance and management arrangements through a participative process (PRODOC Section VIII Governance and Management Arrangements) were developed during PPG phase. Thepreviously mentioned plan, as well as the Indigenous Peoples Plan Framework (IPPF) / Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to be developed

mentation, marginalized indigenous and non-indigenous people are affected indirectly and/or involuntarily by restrictions of access to certain natural resources, potentially causing economic displacement and impacts on their livelihoods.

Probability: 2Impact: 4Risk: Moderate

PF) / Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) to be developedbefore Project implementation, will ensure that all interested parties are adequately consulted regarding the Project activities, including IECB implementation design and application to prevent or mitigate risks.

During the PPG phase, possible sites were visited where the demonstration experiences could be developed; contact was made with the organizations’ representatives and an evaluation of site eligibility was made through compliance with criteria regarding enabling conditions for Project implementation (PRODOC Annex 11Prole Ѐof Target Landscape and Viability Studies), following UNDP’s Social And Environmental Standards and ensuring participation of activities’ beneciaries Ѐin the Regional Technical Committee in their Broad instances (PRODOC Section VIII).

The actions developed in the PPG Phase to ensure the commitment and participation of the parties are detailed in PRODOC Annex 7.

As a preventive risk management measure, a consultation process to conrm Ѐindigenous peoples’ participation will be carried out at the beginning of the implementation phase of the Project in the pilot sites where these communities hold natural resources use rights.

The Project has decided to implement IECB in sites where there are indigenous people’s governance structures to test their application in different scenarios thatare useful for replication. Therefore, in the event that the indigenous communitiesdecide not to con�rm their participation in the project (there are preliminary agreements through partners that represent indigenous communities), an eligibility process will be carried out to establish alternative demonstration experiences with indigenous peoples participation, that comply with IECB enabling conditions (PRODOC Annex 11 Prole Ѐof Target Landscape and Viability Studies) and UNDP socialand environmental standards.

A gender plan was drafted (Annex 8 of the PRODOC) to safeguard the inclusion ofthe gender perspective and participation of women in the Project activities in order to underline and safeguard the possible benets Ѐand negative impacts regarding IECBs (see details on gender approach for the project in Question 1 of this Annex).

A Project Monitoring Plan was designed (Section VII Monitoring and Evaluation(M&E) Plan and Annex 3 Monitoring Plan of the PRODOC) which details the activities and indicators to be executed and reported by the PMU to support inclusion actions, gender perspective and cultural pertinence in the activities of the Project.This Plan will ensure appropriate compliance with the Project’s targets and ful�llment of the indicators regarding participation, strengthening of bene�ciaries’ andstakeholders’ capacities, with focus on gender and indigenous issues.

5 Risk 2 /SESP. There is a risk that promoting sustainable production practices and conservation and restoration activities as part of the IECB‘s, could generate some restrictions regarding the exploitation of natural resources (for exam

The Project has identi�ed the key barriers to women’s participation and empowerment in the correspondent Gender Analysis, and has prepared a Gender Action Plan (PRODOC Annex 8).

The Gender Plan will be implemented and will be overseen through the Monitoring Plan (Section VII and Annex 3 of the PRODOC) for compliance with the actions in this plan and the gender-sensitive indicators, as well as the budget allocated forthis. The monitoring plan includes carrying out a consultancy that will ensure incl

f natural resources (for example, through reserved zones in marine and coastal ecosystems), which could affect both women and men. Furthermore, there could be restraintson participation of women during Project implementation.


t s. e o to g p a c udes ca y g out a co su ta cy t at e su e cusion and monitoring of the gender issues.

Women’s participation will be promoted in all Project actions (for example, personnel selection, interventions, training, multi-level dialogue – see details on Question 1 of this document) for the purpose of coping with the constraints to their participation because of cultural factors: for example, in the artisanal �sheries reality, which has traditionally been a men’s do. The Project will also promote recognition of women’s role in nature conservation, which in the past has not been adequately recognized or valued.

In addition, the Project has de�ned a governance model and management arrangements in a participatory process (PRODOC section VIII), which will allow the application of the sustainability approach with the vision of the parties (PRODOC Section VIII). In addition, the Stakeholders Engagement Plan (PRODOC Annex 7) contributes to safeguard the vision of the stakeholders; specically Ѐcommunities andtheir cultural vision regarding the environment, local governments and other relevant institutions. The IPPF to be developed before Project implementation will alsoensure safeguards to indigenous communities participating of this Project. Theparticipation of the private sector will contribute to include their vision in the Project management, as well as the participation of the different stakeholders and indigenous communities where appropriate, safeguarding the gender approach, will allow the monitoring and evaluation of the Project activities, reducing the probability of this risk.

6 Risk 3 / SESP. All activities ofthe Project’s Component 2 (demonstration experiences ofIECBs implementation) will be carried out within or adjacent to areas of high conservation value (i.e reforestation with native species), that couldbe negatively affected if theProject were to be poorly designed or implemented. Probability: 1Impact: 3Risk: Low

The Project will implement in land, continental aquatic, marine and coastal ecosystems, demonstration experiences with IECB mechanisms that include development of sustainable management measures for the conservation and increase of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Section V Outcomes and VI Project Results Framework/ Annex 2 Multi Year Work Plan). Below will be found the main measures for minimizing the appearance of risks:

• The ESR demonstration experiences in the marine realm will apply “No Take”zones that have been shown to foster the increase of biodiversity and ecosystemservices, in order for these to be included in institutional management through IECB application. • The ESR land experiences foster the application of sustainable managementmeasures for the conservation of the forestry ecosystem, the water ecosystem service, carbon sequestration and other bene�ts yet to be studied. Any reforestation action will be carried out in strict adherence to the criteria of the management plan and using native species. • In land and marine ecosystems we will design and develop green projects founded in Nature Based Solutions, with proposals for sustainable management measures. These project models will contribute to reinforcing public and private entities management. • A base study will be carried out to measure the state of conservation of nativeforests in 56 watersheds in Los Rios region, with proposals for sustainable management measures, as a basis for strengthening institutional management and IECB application.

C app cat o . • Information about the state of the ecosystems and biodiversity will be generated, systematized and managed regarding IECB application. By means of trainingactions, capabilities will be strengthened for institutional management regardingprotection of biodiversity and ecosystem services. • A model for governance and regional participation will be drafted to accompany development of the IECB demonstration experiences and a model for territorial governance will be institutionalized with wide participation regarding IECB’s. • Project management will ensure that the measures applied be environmentally sustainable and that they promote conservation of biodiversity and ecosystemservices. Monitoring of its implementation will safeguard appropriate compliance.

7 Risk 4 /SESP. The EcosystemServices Retribution (ESR) scheme in the marine demonstration experiences are expected to result in increased biodiversity and biomass within the de�ned non-extraction zones; this may increase vulnerability to thefts and poaching. Probability: 3Impact: 3Risk: Moderate

As a management measure to address this risk, the ESR scheme in the marine demonstration experiences includes the design, establishment, monitoring and reporting of a Surveillance System of remote cameras and a Community SurveillanceSystem led by the local communities with use-rights on marine resources (indigenous and non-indigenous) to minimize and prevent thefts (See details in the PRODOC Section V Outcomes and associations and Annex 6 Overview of technical consultancies /Section X Total Budget and Workplan, Budget Note 13). A Plan for capacity building will be drafted and implemented (PRODOC Component 3 / Section VI) for sustainable management and compliance with rules in the extraction of marine resources. The experience and lessons learned from surveillance will be systematized and will serve as input for capacity building.

8 Risk 5 / SESP. Project outcomes regarding enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services in the demonstration experiences are vulnerable to possible impacts from climatechange (e.g. increases in ocean’s temperature; exposure toprolonged droughts, among other impacts).


The development of IECB demonstration experiences in terrestrial and marine ecosystems includes the design and implementation of sustainable managementmeasures that will consider climate change criteria. The Project will also developpolicy tools and a governance that contribute to conservation and to increase resiliency of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The results of these measures willcontribute to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change (PRODOC Section V Outcomes and Associations / Section VI Project Results Framework and Multi Year Work Plan - Annex 2). The outputs and targets de�ned in Components 1 and 2 aim at reinforcing institutional management of biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation (water and marine resources) and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Speci�c indicators for sustainable management measures were established to underline carbon sequestration by native forests under improved management in the terrestrial demonstration experiences. And, regarding the marine demonstration experiences, indicators of sustainable management measures were developedto underline the increase in biodiversity and biomass (PRODOC Section VI ProjectResults Framework and Annex 3 Monitoring Plan). These indicators will be monitored as described in the PRODOC Section VII and Annex 3.

9 Risk 6 /SESP. Child labour co Demonstration experiences mostly target small landholders and �shermen assoc

uld be used in small-scale agriculture /forestry in properties part of the ESR scheme in terrestrial ecosystems or in �shing activities associated to the ESR scheme in marine ecosystems (Component 2)


p y giations that are not the major sources of child labour in Chile.

Particular attention will be given to ensure that no child labor is involved in activities associated with Project implementation, through the following measures:

The UNDP Country O�ce and the PMU will promote strict compliance with the national legislation that prohibits child labor, through awareness raising about the issue in the sites and communities of demonstration experiences, and training to Project staff, partners and consultants.

Communication of the child labor prohibition will be included in the Terms of Reference for consultancies and services and included in all contracts and donation agreements.

The PMU will ensure that all actions and service contracts impose the prohibitionof child labor. The UNDP will ensure adequate compliance. Implementation of the monitoring plan will ensure oversight and reporting on adequate compliance with these measures

Instructions will be given and follow-up carried out with the stakeholders involved, especially the Project team, the conservation guarantors and the local organizations involved.

The Plan and actions of monitoring and evaluation (PRODOC Section VII and Annex 3) will ensure and inform about compliance with the measures that seek to prevent child labor; speci�cally, when contracting services; in carrying out consultancies (PRODOC Annex 6 and 9); in development of land and marine demonstrationexperiences where sustainable management actions are carried out (Component2).

10 Risk 7 /SESP. Project’s area of in�uence includes indigenous peoples. There is a risk that these communities may beexcluded from the decisions that will affect them (directlyor indirectly), that they will not bene�t equally from the Project, and/or that there will be restrictions in their access to resources associated with theimplementation of IECB’s. Inaddition, there could be someideological resistance to IECB’s because they are market -based solutions. Probability: 2Impact: 4Risk: Moderate

Particular attention will be given to ensure that indigenous peoples participate ofdecision making and bene�t from the Project outcomes, through the following measures: Implementation of the IECB’s will be carried out within a framework of sensibilization, generating capacities and support. Each Project activity will be carried out through a process of critical re�ection and feed-back with both men and women indigenous participants, which will allow a detailed understanding of the scope of these instruments and to take the necessary safeguards to avoid negative impacts in their participation and in their territories. An IPPF will be developed, and its compliance will be monitored during Project implementation as part of the M&E plan (PRODOC Section VII Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan / Annex 3 Monitoring Plan ).This framework to be developed before project implementation will describe themeasures that the Government of Chile has already implemented to consult about the institutionalization of IECBs as mechanisms to increase protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services outside o�cial protected areas. This subject wasalready covered by a national indigenous peoples’ consultation in the context of the law proposal to create the Service of Biodiversity and Protected Areas (SBAPby its Spanish acronym), which includes the use and promotion of IECBs. This consultation was done in all regions of the country, including communities from the

g y glocalities where the Project will implement its demonstration experiences. The IPPF will also establish the procedure to ensure that indigenous people are adequately consulted (complying with the UNDP/GEF directives and Chilean legislation), that their active participation is encouraged and that the Project provides them signi�cant bene�ts. Measures are established for preventing and mitigatingany potential negative impact, and the Project will adhere to the UNDP requirements for Prior, Free and Informed Consent (FPIC). To establish the appropriate conditions to implement the demonstration experiences of (DE) Component 2, the Project respected the local governance structures in which the related indigenous peoples participate. The Project initially engaged them through trusted partners that participate or manage these governance structures. In the marine demonstration experience (DE) in Caulín, the Project partnered with the NGO Costa Humboldt. This organization has been instrumental in helping the indigenous communities of Caulín to declare their traditional sites for �shing and other coastal uses as an ocial Coastal and Marine Ѐ Zone for IndigenousCommunities (ECMPO), �gure that provides legal protection from other non-consuetudinary uses and from other potential non-indigenous illegal users. In the terrestrial DEs for Ecosystem Services Retribution (ESR) schemes, the Project partnered with Rural Drinking Water Committees (CAPRs, by its Spanish acronym) that represent the interests of the community (indigenous and non-indigenous) in waterconsumption and which will eventually become intermediaries in the ESR schemeto be developed by the Project (in the case of Mashue, the ESR scheme already exists and the Project will support its improvement). During PPG Phase, given theCOVID-19 sanitary measures put in place, the Project and partners could not execute FPIC directly and in presence in each of the pilot sites where there are indigenous peoples, to make it a culturally pertinent process. Alternative remote methods were not an option because of limitations in connectivity and because these were not appropriate channels of communication to engage these indigenous communities. Thus, the Project and its partners have decided that indigenous communities in the Project’s intervention areas will be consulted in detail about the objectives, scope and expected outcomes of the DEs once the Project starts, as its �rst priority. This will allow them to decide about their involvement in the Project andcon�rm their participation, once informed in more detail. Component 3 on knowledge management includes experience sharing between peers, so that those who have implemented these mechanisms can share their experiences and become familiar with their results and bene�ts; as well as experience transfer at midterm and upon nalization Ѐof the Project. A Strategic Plan for each demonstration experience will be drafted including a Financing Strategy focusing on the ESR scheme but also exploring other IECB and sources of funding that can be accessed by the indigenous communities and theirtechnical advisors for the long-term sustainability of the demonstration experiences (PRODOC Section V Project Results Framework and Annex 2 Multi Year WorkPlan (Outcome 2 -Output 6 - Activities 6.1). See details on the PRODOC Annex 6 Overview of technical consultancies: Conservation Guarantor and Consultant to consolidate �nancing strategy for IECB project model (PRODOC Section IX BudgetN t )

Note). The Project has a monitoring plan (PRODOC Section VII and Annex 3) that will address appropriate compliance with participation, indigenous issues and gender issues. The IPPF will describe a mechanism for presenting and resolving grievances which will be maintained throughout Project implementation to be used by any stakeholder involved, in particular indigenous people matters. Chile is signatory of the ILO Convention 169 so the Project will comply with all associated requirements, in addition to the UNDP SES requirements. Participation in the Project and IECB application will be completely voluntary andProject implementation will be carried out through a participative process that includes indigenous peoples.

11 Risk 8 /SESP. A culturally appropriate FPIC process has not been developed during PPGphase in the demonstration experiences where there are indigenous peoples, therefore indigenous peoples might still decide not to conrm their Ѐparticipation in the project. Probability: 1Impact: 4Risk: Moderate

A culturally appropriate FPIC process will be developed with the indigenous peoples once the Project starts its implementation, being the �rst priority, and in partnership with the NGO Costa Humboldt for the marine demonstration experience inCaulín and with the CAPRs Mashue and Liquiñe in the terrestrial demonstration experiences (additional details will be provided in the IPPF to be developed beforeproject implementation). The FPIC process will be included in the scope of work of the donation agreement with the NGO Costa Humboldt and the CAPRs Mashue and Liquiñe, and in the technical consultancy for gender and cultural pertinence (PRODOC Annex 6 Overview of Technical Consultancies).

COVID-19 Risk Mitigation Strategy

Challenges Opportunities and Preventive/Mitigation measures

Short-term (project start) Medium-term(mid-term)

Long-term (end-of-project)

1. Risk of infection of key people thatwork or contribute to the project could jeopardize the project initiation, specially several people get infected at the same time.

Continued riskof infection and restrictions because number of infected people continue t

d

Potential delay in project implementation

· Chile is one of the countries in the world with the highest rates of COVID-19 vaccinations and the projection suggests that80% of the population will be vaccinated by 2021 Q2.

· While travel and mobility restrictions continue, every projectactivity will be adapted to be developed remotely if possible, and �eld activities that apply as “essential” activities will be recognized as such in Terms of References of consultancies andcontracts of new staff.

2. Travel and mobility restrictions (e.g., lockdowns, travel bans) and the de�nition of “essential” jobs according to local legislation, could limit the �eld work, includi

o grow and vaccination plansstill do not cover the entire population.

e tat o co t acts o e sta .

· To guide the execution of in-person activities, the Project will prepare and implement guidelines for in-person meetings / �eld work under a COVID-19 scenario based on advice from the World Health Organization and Chile’s national pandemic plan “Paso a Paso” (“Step by step”).

ng local communities’ consultations, ecosystem services assessments, baseline data gathering, among other key activitiesscheduled for the beginning of the Project.

3. In-person work is limited not only due to formal mobility restrictions but alsoto people’s con�dence and willingness toexpose themselves voluntarily to situations of higher COVID-19 infection risk.

· In-person work will be encouraged if sanitary and legal conditions allow it (i.e. staff are vaccinated, partners start their in-person activities, mobility restrictions are removed); as well as personal conditions of each person (i.e. children not able tostart school yet; living with elderly people in higher risk of notcoping well with the COVID-19, etc.).

· The Project will encourage virtuality whenever possible if outcomes are achievable via remote means. Staff project local partners and communities will be trained in the use of virtual methods for meetings and will be given the tools to use them.

4. Limitation of in-person meetings. This can lead to reduced formal and informal interactions among several stakeholders, for example, between the PMU and government and private sector partners; theProject staff in the pilot sites with local partners and communities (including indigenous peoples).

· During PPG phase virtuality has supported coordination among several institutions, allowing greater inclusiveness as a result of cheaper means for participation (i.e. airplane tickets and accommodation stopped being a budget item for many organizations). The pandemic pushed many people and institutions to evolve their channels of communication and methodsfor conducting meetings, and coordination was still possible.

· The Project will develop and implement biosecurity plans formeetings, and will design different alternatives to implementvirtual meetings base on specic context Ѐsituations.

5. Limited / unreliable internet accessin several rural areas where the Project has demonstration sites could limit the remote collaborative work as an alternative tosuspended in-person activities, includingstakeholder’s engagement, consultation and meetings.

· Internet connectivity arose as a priority issue for many communities, regional governments and internet service providers. It is expected that the pandemic triggers new public/privateinvestments to increase internet connectivity in several places of the country.

· Speci�cally, in the demonstration experiences sites of the Project, local staff and local communities participating of the Project will be given the tools to have access to internet as close to their duty stations/homes as possible to be able to partici t i th P j t t li ti iti If thi i t

ipate in the Project remote on-line activities. If this is not possible due to technical reasons, hybrid engagement (online / in-person) will be organized and no relevant decisions involving local partners/communities will be made without their participation.

6. Reduced stakeholder engagement because of competing needs (i.e. focus ontheir agendas affected by the COVID-19 health and economic crisis; focus on economic recovery).

· The causes of the pandemic have triggered re�ection in keyinstitutions and decision makers about how biodiversity loss is a key driver of many human-driven catastrophes, including zoonotic diseases that affect human wellbeing.

· There is and increased awareness and understanding of theimportance of biodiversity for future human health, well-beingand economic prosperity.

7. Di�culties to materialise co-�nancing from public and private Project partners because their budgets could be modi�ed to respond to arising pandemic-associated contingencies.

· Despite there have been budget restrictions for many institutions, there are speci�c sectors of the economy that have accelerated their investments towards the economic recovery. Many of these sectors are partners of the Project (water provision infrastructure, forestry, mining) so their �nancial commitments to the Project should continue.

· The Project will start an early engagement with these institutions before Project implementation so any �nancial commitment is managed e�ciently as soon as the Project starts, andongoing communication with key project partners will be maintained to identify any di�culties in materializing co�nancing.

· In addition, the Project will seek opportunities of collaboration with other ongoing projects and initiatives to obtain contributions that can add to project co�nancing and outcomes.

8. Need to assign budget resources toimplement biosecurity protocols and strengthen capacities for on-line remote collaboration.

· The Project considered in its budget and preliminary terms of references of key staff and consultants, resources to implement COVID-19 biosecurity measures and actions to strengthen capacities for on-line remote collaboration. The Project will undertake budget reviews toassign resources for this topic, as necessary.

6. Institutional Arrangement and Coordination

Describe the institutional arrangement for project implementation. Elaborate on the planned coordination with other relevant GEF-�nanced projects and otherinitiatives.

The Project’s Implementation Agency is the UNDP. The UNDP Country Oce Ѐ will provide direct project services and will charge Direct Project Cost (DPC)according to UNDP DPC policy on GEF funded projects. Details of services are reected Ѐin the Letter of Agreement (LOA) and its Appendix, which is signed andattached to the project document. The executing institution is the Ministry of Environment. The Project has a Steering Committee consisting of a UNDPrepresentative, the Project Director who represents the EM and a representative of each institutional bene�ciary. The Project’s governance and participationarrangement is a multi-sectorial and inter-institutional coordination body called the "National Technical Committee" and the respective subnational bodies calledthe "Regional Technical Committees", in those Regions where the land and marine and coastal IECB demonstration experiences will be carried out. BothCommittees have a broad version, where communities, civil society (NGO’s, Foundations and others), private enterprise, academia and other relevant stakeholdersparticipate.

Development of demonstration experience implementation will be led by the Project Management Unit which has a National Project Coordinator and an Assistantfor technical, administrative and monitoring and evaluation support. On the subnational level, the PMU is represented by the Macroregional Technical Coordinator;at this level they will have the support of the EM’s Regional Ministerial Secretariats, who will reinforce inter-institutional management and governance on theregional and local levels in coordination with the RTC’s and their broader instances.

The partners responsible for development of the ESR demonstration experiences are the Guarantors of Biodiversity Conservation (GBC): in the marineexperiences these will be the Costa Humbolt Foundation and the Capital Azul Foundation. In the case of the land experiences, the GBC’s will be the Rural PotableWater Committee (CAPR) of Mashue and the CAPR of Liquiñe. The small-scale �shermen’s organizations will be bene�ciaries and will participate in theimplementation of the marine ESR DE; in the land cases, these will be the CAPR’s themselves and their beneciaries. ЀThe pertinent sectorial institutions willaccompany development of the demonstration experiences and will be bene�ciaries of capacity building along with the local organizations.

For its part, the GEF Coastal Wetlands Project will be a key partner in the development of the Derecho Real de Conservación IECB DE in two wetlands (RocuantAndalien and Queule, Annex 1). That Project will provide the local governance arrangement and operational support, and will contribute the methodology andevaluation of wetlands biodiversity and ecosystems, based on the results of their efforts. Some private entities will participate, taking on the responsibility fordeveloping some of the IECB’s, as in the case of Derecho Real de Conservación. The Mashue CAPR will lend support for the development of a DE for a CE in itsrespective sub-basin.

The regional and local governments where the demonstration experiences are implemented, in consideration of their role in territorial governance andadministration, will participate in the governance arrangement and will be responsible for contributing to institutionalizing the focus of biodiversity andecosystems services protection in territorial planning instruments.

The Small-Scale Fishermen’s Organizations and the Rural Potable Water Committees and their bene�ciaries have active responsibility in development of the IECBdemonstration experiences for Ecosystem Services Retribution. The Project counterparts, their role and functions are described in detail in the StakeholdersParticipation Plan in the PRODOC, Annex 7.

The NTC will consist initially of representatives of the EM, the Under-Secretariat for Fishing and Aquiculture (SUBPESCA), the National Service for Fisheries andAquiculture (SERNAPESCA), the Department of Overseas Territory and the Merchant Marine (DIRECTEMAR), the Institute for Fisheries Development (IFOP), the

National Institute for the Sustainable Development of Small-Scale Fishing and Aquiculture (INDESPA), the National Corporation for Indigenous Development(CONADI), the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF), the Forestry Institute (INFOR), the Superintendency of Sanitary Services (SISS), the Water WorksDepartment (DOH), the Highway Department, the Institute for the Development of Agriculture and Livestock (INDAP), the Bureau of Agrarian Studies and Policies(ODEPA), the Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG), the Finance Ministry, the Under-Secretariat for Tourism, the National Tourism Service (SERNATUR), theService for Environmental Evaluation (SEA) and the Environment Superintendency (SMA). In addition, the Implementation Agency (UNDP) and the GEF FPO will bepart of the NTC. The RTC’s will consist of representatives of those public bodies with competencies in the areas of intervention in the ecosystem included in eachRegion, as well as the corresponding Regional Government (GORE) and Local Government (Municipality). For the Broad instances, representatives of thecommunities, private companies, NGO’s, civil society, academia and other relevant stakeholders will be invited to participate in order to achieve the desiredresults.

The EM will preside over both the NTC and the RTC’s; they can call for an internal Technical Round Table for advisement purposes. This Round Table will includeEM divisions, departments and areas that contribute to the design, implementation and sustainability of IECB’s, providing technical and operational assistance aswell as articulation with other EM initiatives (See details in section VIII Governance and Management Arrangements in the PRODOC). The Project organizationstructure is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Project Organization structure

Diagrams about the governance structures of the National and Regional Technical Committess are presented in Annex H.

7. Consistency with National Priorities

Describe the consistency of the project with national strategies and plans or reports and assesments under relevant conventions from below:

NAPAs, NAPs, ASGM NAPs, MIAs, NBSAPs, NCs, TNAs, NCSAs, NIPs, PRSPs, NPFE, BURs, INDCs, etc.

National Action Plan for Adaptation (NAPA) under LDCF/UNFCCCNational Action Program (NAP) under UNCCDASGM NAP (Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining) under MercuryMinamata Initial Assessment (MIA) under Minamata ConventionNational Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan (NBSAP) under UNCBDNational Communications (NC) under UNFCCCTechnology Needs Assessment (TNA) under UNFCCCNational Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) under UNCBD, UNFCCC, UNCCDNational Implementation Plan (NIP) under POPsPoverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP)National Portfolio Formulation Exercise (NPFE) under GEFSECBiennial Update Report (BUR) under UNFCCC - OthersNational Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan (NBSAP) under UNCBDNational Action Plan for Adaptation (NAPA) under LDCF/UNFCCCBiannual Update Report (BUR (under UNFCCC)Intended Nationally Determined Contribution – INDC under UNFCCC. Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change in BiodiversityNational Strategy for Conservation and Rational Use of Wetlands in ChileNational Strategy for Marine ConservationChile’s Forestry Policy 2015 - 2035National Strategy for Climate Change and Vegetational Resources - ENCCRVNational Rural Development PolicyLaw 20.930 on Derecho Real de Conservación

8. Knowledge Management

Elaborate the "Knowledge Management Approach" for the project, including a budget, key deliverables and a timeline, and explain how it will contribute to theproject's overall impact.

Knowledge management is part of the Project’s Component 3 (Section V Outcomes and Section VI Project Results Framework). It is based on development of aStrategic Communications Plan focused on knowledge management and strengthening capabilities of key stakeholders regarding IECB’s, which will be draftedduring the Q3 and Q4 periods of the Project’s 1st year and carried out in the course of Project implementation. Budget money has been allocated for developmentand implementation of the Strategic Communications Plan, including different comunication media: (i) web platforms and development of self-teaching trainingcourses; (ii) publication of documents, bulletins and systematization of experiences; (iii) exchange activities and distribution; and (iv) promotion of citizen scienceplatforms (I-naturalist or others). Knowledge generated as specic Ѐoutputs and outcomes in components 1 and 2, such as the development of tools and of the demonstration experiences for eachIECB in land and marine environments, will become imputs for raising awareness and strengthening national capabilities, in institutions, communities, in theprivate sector and with other key stakeholders. The knowledge management thus generated will contribute to achieving the Project’s objective through raisingawareness among stakeholders, strengthening capabilities and the institucionalization of the IECB mechanisms and other outputs, mainstreaming the value ofbiodiversity and ecosystem services conservation in institutional routine activities; this will ensure improved institutional management and the participation of theprivate sector, increasing �nancing for sustainable conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Development of the IECB information system and its implementation through an internet platform will constitute a mechanism for permanent knowledgemanagement for all stakeholders (components 1 and 3, Section V Outcomes and Associations and VI Project Results Framework).

9. Monitoring and Evaluation

Describe the budgeted M and E plan

Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) will be implemented in accordance with the UNDP and GEF Monitoring Policies and Procedures. Monitoring andevaluation will be carried out on all of the following: fulllment Ѐof the indicators de�ned in the work plan (Section VII M&E and Annex 3 M&E indicators); all thepotential risks listed for Project development (Annex 5/PRODOC); the social and environmental safeguards and risks identied Ѐand registered through applicationof the Social and Environmental Screening Procedure (Annex 4 of the PRODOC); the strategic partners commitment plan (Section IX Financial Planning andManagement; Annex 12 of the PRODOC); the gender action plan (Annex 8 of the PRODOC); the GEF core indicators (Annex 13 of the PRODOC); as well asapplication of other tools for the evaluation of indicators that may be required. Furthermore, planned activities will be carried out that are a part of the monitoring and evaluation plan, such as the following: the inception workshop with itsrespective report; the Project implementation report (PIR) on an annual basis; the independent midterm evaluation and the independent nal Ѐevaluation, plus thecorresponding reports, and the prior revision of the level of fulllment Ѐof the GEF core indicators. The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan budget is for USD $115,000.Implementation of the Plan will be accompanied by the UNDP’s Technical Regional Advisor, Monitoring O�cials, Gender O�cials and the UNDP Country O�ce.

The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget is showed below

Table 2. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget

GEF M&E requirements Responsible Parties Indicative costs (US$) Time frame

Inception Workshop Implementing Partner 13,000 Within 60 days of CEO endorsement of this project.PM/Coordinator

Inception Report PM/Coordinator None Within 90 days of CEO endorsement of this project.

Monitoring of indicators in project results framework PM/Coordinator None

Annually prior to GEF PIR. This will include GEF core indicators.

GEF Project Implementation Report(PIR)

RTA AddAnnually typically betweenJune-AugustUNDP Country O�ce[1] 18,000

PMU/Coordinator/ CTA Monitoring all risks (UNDP risk register)

UNDP Country O�ce Add On-going.PMU/Coordinator/ CTA 0

Monitoring of [list safeguards management frameworks and/or plans here; delete row if none]

Project Safeguards O�cer Add as per plan On-going.

Supervision missions UNDP Country O�ce None[2] AnnuallyOversight missions RTA and BPPS/GEF None Troubleshooting as needed

Mid-term GEF and/or LDCF/SCCF Core indicators and METT or other required Tracking Tools

INFOR – CONAF – DOH – TNC - Garantes de conservaciónTerrestre y marino - 6,000 Before mid-term review mis

sion takes place.PMU

Independent Mid-term Review (MTR) Independent evaluators 36,000 Add date included on coverpage of Project Document

Terminal GEF and/or LDCF/SCCF Core indicators and METT or other required Tracking Tools

INFOR – CONAF – DOH – TNC - Garantes de conservaciónTerrestre y marino - PMU

6,000 Before terminal evaluationmission takes place

Independent Terminal Evaluation (TE) Independent evaluators 36,000 Add date included on coverpage of Project Document

TOTAL indicative COST 115,000* Add to TBWP component 3

14

14

10. Bene�ts

Describe the socioeconomic bene�ts to be delivered by the project at the national and local levels, as appropriate. How do these bene�ts translate in supportingthe achievement of global environment benets (GEF ЀTrust Fund) or adaptation bene�ts (LDCF/SCCF)?

Regarding socioeconomic benets, Ѐby the end of the project there will be a direct positive inuence Ѐon 1,334 people (401 women and 933 men) who will bene�tfrom the mechanisms put in place to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem services that they depend on (mostly marine resources and fresh water supply).These direct bene�ciaries are the members of each of the organizations that will co-execute the project IECB demonstration experiences: the Rural Drinking WaterCommittees of Mashue and Liquiñe, the Fishermen Association of AMERBs Chepu, Ventanas and Maitencillo, and the indigeneous communities of ECMPOCaulín. As a result of Project implementation, this initiative will deliver various global environment benets Ѐ(GEB’s) in sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity, asdescribed in the GEF-7 Programme Directives. The demonstration experiences in land ecosystems will contribute to the protection of ecosystems of high globalsignicance, Ѐ making available around 100,000 ha of high value (HCV) native forests for conservation and sustainably managed biodiversity in the Los RíosRegion. Furthermore, carbon emissions will be mitigated, measured as carbon sequester, as a result of the application of sustainable management measures,amounting to 89,890 metric tons of CO2. Having available IECB mechanisms and guidelines as well as other institutionalized outputs (green project models; intervention models based on sustainablepractices; information and monitoring and evaluation systems and an internet platform; studies on biometrics and return on investment in ecosystem services,etc.) generates benets Ѐon the national level, strengthens institutions’ management capabilities, as well as public policies, strategies, plans and instruments. Atthe same time, access by the private sector and their participation is ensured, thereby improving the development of conservation projects and appropriateoffsets through IECB application, increasing both public and private nancing Ѐ and favorably impacting biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation.Furthermore, it will contribute to the implementation and up-dating of the NDC’s and Chile’s other international commitments such as the CDB and ClimateChange. It contributes directly to EM and SEIA capabilities; to the Environmental Superintendency’s information system; as well as to the component of theNational System of Public Investment consistent with the objectives of IECB implementation under the Social Development Ministry’s responsibility. Development of the land and marine demonstration experiences (DE’s) will make it possible to validate the methodological guidelines for the instruments andgenerate knowledge for strengthening local and national capabilities. The land ESR experience will reinforce the management capabilities of the Rural PotableWater Committees impacting other CAPR’s, through replication and up-scaling; as well as directly to their bene�ciary members. This experience will benet ЀthePublic Works Ministry’s Water Works Department regarding improving management of the CAPR’s under their responsibility as well as achieving more sustainablemanagement of water resources for human consumption. This initiative will contribute to DE sustainability, replicability and scalability in other CAPR’s. Studies onbiometrics and return on investment will contribute to Sanitary Services Superintendency management and its inclusion of biodiversity and ecosystem services indetermining tarrifs for potable water services. Development of NbS project models contributes to the Finance Ministry’s Green Bonds initiative regarding climatechange. The IECB mechanisms with green project models and sustainable management measures, together with the territorial governance framework, contributeto improving management in the Agriculture Ministry’s institutions (INDAP, CONAF, INFOR, SAG and ODEPA). As for the results of IECB application regarding theecosystem services of scenic beauty, human well-being and tourism, this will contribute to the targets of the National Tourism Service. Implementation of sustainable management measures in native forests will make it possible to improve in the middle and long term the ecosystem services ofwater for rural human consumption and productive systems, carbon sinking, and other ecosystem services, such as: scenic beauty, tourism, cultural objectives,medicinal applications and social well-being. If it should be feasible to develop the ESR DE’s in the Alto Maipo Wetlands, this will be an example of supporting theecosystem service of water for human consumption in an urban area. If it should be feasible to develop CE experiences in coastal wetlands, the surface areaunder conservation measures will be increased as well as �nancing for biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation in this type of ecosystem. The outputs and outcomes will foster transfer of capabilities and nancing Ѐthrough IECB application; the outputs taken together will be an incentive for projectdevelopment; the ESR demonstration experiences could also serve as offset sites, attracting nancing Ѐ to the territory; this same benet Ѐ will generate thedevelopment of the certication Ѐsystem. The land and marine ESR demonstration experiences will contribute to regional and local governance and to territorialplanning within the IECB framework as well as planning of sustainable measures founded in NbS’s.

The implementation of demonstration experiences in marine and coastal ecosystems will help strengthen capabilities of Fishermen’s Union members in theAMERB’s and the ECMPO. In this last case, indigenous issues will be safeguarded. Developing this IECB experience will lead directly to an increase in biodiversity,in quantity, size and number of species; will transfer methodologies for natural resources conservation and management, demonstrating an increase in bentonicresources and seaweed, that can be incorporated as a model in the management plans of these marine management systems (replication, sustainability and up-scaling). Furthermore, the Unions will be strengthened in their organizational capabilities, in reaching agreements through the development of activities for theapplication of surveillance system models and biodiversity management models. As in the case of the land experiences, this will attract nancing Ѐ for themanagement and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and through the system for managing and increasing natural resources, we will even becontributing to incomes, the feasibility of project development and broadening out to include other ecosystem services such as tourism. The IECB demonstration experiences in the AMERB and ECMPO will generate, like in the land experiences, an ESR mechanism (green project model, sustainablemanagement measures, information system and nancing Ѐ strategy); these will become offset sites and will have a Biodiversity Conservation Certi�cationSystem. The tools generated will contribuite to strengthening the sectorial institutions: SERNAPESCA, SUBPESCA, INDESPA and DIRECTEMAR. Furthermore, theresults of the demonstration experience in the ECMPO where indigenous issues are addressed, will contribute to the CONADI targets and to strengtheningECMPO management plans through IECB application.

Safeguarding application of the gender focus throughout the IECB DE’s, in all capacity building actions, including indigenous issues and cultural pertinence, willprovide lessons that will reveal the role of women in biodiversity and ecosystem conservation; it will foster IECB application and provide knowledge for replicability and up-scaling actions. Implementation of the ESR IECB and other instruments will provide social benets Ѐrecognized on the local, regional and national levels; as well as the contributionof models on the international level.

11. Environmental and Social Safeguard (ESS) Risks

Provide information on the identi�ed environmental and social risks and potential impacts associated with the project/program based on yourorganization's ESS systems and procedures

Overall Project/Program Risk Classi�cation*

PIF CEO Endorsement/Approval MTR TE

Medium/Moderate

Measures to address identi�ed risks and impacts

Elaborate on the types and risk classi�cations/ratings of any identi�ed environmental and social risks and impacts (considering the GEF ESSMinimum Standards) and any measures undertaken as well as planned management measures to address these risks during implementation.

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING PROCEDURE (SESP)

Project Information

Project Information

1. Project TitleEconomic instruments and tools to support the conservation of biodiversity, the payment of ecosystem services and sustainable development

2. Project Number 5794

3. Location (Global/Region/Country)

Chile

Part A. Integrating Overarching Principles to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability

QUESTION 1: How Does the Project Integrate the Overarching Principles in order to Strengthen Social and Environmental Sustainability?

Briey Ѐdescribe in the space below how the Project mainstreams the human-rights based approachThe project objective is to improve national nancing Ѐof biodiversity through the design, implementation and optimization of market-based economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation (IECB, its acronym in Spanish). The instruments to be developed are: Ecosystem Services Retribution (ESR; also known as Payment for Ecosystem Services or PES schemes); Biodiversity Offsets in the context of the Chilean Environmental Impact Assessment Framework; Derecho Real de Conservación (a Chilean mechanism similar tointernationally used Conservation Easements and Covenants); and a Public Certication ЀSystem for activities,practices or sites, that contribute to biodiversity conservation and to maintain or restore ecosystem services. These instruments will be institutionalized through implementing guides and procedures, and will be piloted in terrestrial and marine demonstration experiences in partnership with local partners and communities. Thus, IECBs are expected to strengthen public nancing Ѐand to facilitate economic contributions by the private sector tomaintaining Chile’s natural capital.

The Project mainstreams the human rights-based approach, as follows:

Participation and inclusion: the Project will seek to assure the commitment and participation of all stakeholders in the different stages of the Project cycle and its activities. Governmental bodies, local communities, civil society and the private sector have all been consulted during the PPG phase. An analysis was carried out of the stakeholders, which served as a basis for drawing up the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (PRODOC Annex 7) andto develop an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) as part of the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) (PRODOC Annex 17). In the Stakeholders Engagement Plan, key Project stakeholdersare identied Ѐ(see stakeholder map in PRODOC Annex 7), the participation process, consultations carried out during Project formulation and the mechanisms of participation are summarized Furthermore the role of each

uring Project formulation and the mechanisms of participation are summarized. Furthermore, the role of eachstakeholder is described, including government institutions on the national, regional and local levels, the academic and research institutions, the private sector, organizations of civil society and local communities, includingthose in which women and indigenous communities participate. The interventions in the demonstration experiences will be carried out with the full participation and inclusion of the relevant stakeholders. During implementation, the Project will ensure that potentially marginalized individuals and groups have a voice in the decision-making processes and in the activities that may affect them. The human rights principle of participation and inclusion will be respected throughout the Project. When appropriate, free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) willbe sought as indicated in the IPPF (PRODOC Annex 17). Finally, the conict Ѐresolution mechanisms that will be applied during Project implementation can be found in the Stakeholders Engagement Plan (PRODOC Annex7). The Project strategy includes actions for information management and distribution.

The Project is aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development contributing to the following goals:1) Goal 6 Water and sanitation, through the development of an ESR model applicable to safeguard drinking water sources for rural communities of IECB to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services; 2) Goal 13 Climate Action, through the development of models of nature-based solutions (NbS) that can be implemented in the context of IECBs implementation to achieve climate mitigation and adaptation goals while protecting biodiversity;3) Goal 14 Life Below Water, through testing ESR schemes to protect relevant marine resources in partnershipwith shermen Ѐand indigenous peoples; and 4) Goal 15 Life On Land, through testing different IECBs to protectbiodiversity and ecosystem services outside ocial Ѐ protected areas, in partnership with landowners and localcommunities. The principle of rendering accounts and the state of law will be maintained, adhering to all standard UNDP policies regarding monitoring, evaluation, audits and transparency in Project implementation. The UNDP has established account rendering mechanisms that have two main components: 1) A review of compliance in responding to any possible complaint that the UNDP did not comply with the applicable social and environmental policies; and 2) a Stakeholder Response Mechanism (SRM) which ensures that individuals, peoplesand communities affected by the Projects have access to appropriate procedures for resolving complaints, forhearing and addressing complaints and con�icts related to the Project.

Briey describe in the space below how Ѐthe Project is likely to improve gender equality and women’s empowermentDuring the PPG phase, a gender analysis was carried out for the purpose of understanding the different impacts, needs and concerns of women and men regarding the Project and its outcomes. A Gender Action Plan wasdrawn up and budgeted (see PRODOC Annex 8), and it was assigned a UNDP gender marker: GEN2. The Project includes indicators broken down by gender in the Project Results Framework (Section VI of the PRODOC). Theannual reports will include details of the outcomes achieved in terms of promoting gender equality and improving women’s empowerment. In the Project design, human and nancial Ѐresources were earmarked for incorporating a gender perspective during Project implementation and for monitoring the effectiveness of this. Genderbalance will be taken into consideration in hiring Project staff and in nominating the Steering Committee, as well as in activities for developing capabilities, among others.

According to the gender analysis carried out, women’s role in biodiversity conservation and participation in IECB implementation has not been su�ciently valued or appreciated, nor is it clear that the benets of Ѐthese are reaching women. For this reason, women will be beneciaries Ѐof actions for capacity building and for promotingopportunities to develop nature-based income-generating activities, including the implementation of economicinstruments for biodiversity conservation (IECB in Spanish) and complementary actions such as tourism. Along these same lines, the Project seeks to reveal and value women’s knowledge about nature, generated throughtheir traditions and way of life, currently under threat by environmental degradation, especially in the case of indigenous women. The Gender Action Plan (PRODOC Annex 8) establishes measures so indigenous women’s knowledge is appropriately considered during the Project development. These measures were also consideredduring the development of the IPPF.

Briey describe in the space below how Ѐthe Project mainstreams environmental sustainabilityThis Project promotes environmental sustainability through the development of economic instruments for biodiversity conservation so that economic/productive activities and conservation efforts may converge in an integrated development strategy with a territorial focus. In order to achieve this, the Project will promote the incorporation of IECB’s into the institutional framework, both in the marine and coastal ecosystems and the land and continental aquatic ecosystems (component 1). The IECB’s will be tested through demonstration experiences inareas of high conservation value and in different administrative and resource management systems (component 2). In the same manner, the Project will promote the increase of knowledge and comprehension of the IECB’s in Chile among stakeholders and other interested parties (component 3), with the objective of promoting their application throughout the national territory as a contribution to environmental sustainability.

Furthermore, the Project incorporates environmental sustainability through the implementation of a governance framework that makes it possible for institutional and private stakeholders as well as local communities within a territory to act in a coordinated manner, which will lead to lesser impacts on the environment and will increase the e�ciency and effectiveness of actions that are currently being carried out in a disarticulated manner, leading in many cases to increased pressures on the same territory generating a process of degradation.

The Project reects Ѐthe priorities identied Ѐin the United Nations Framework Convention on Biodiversity, rati�ed by Chile in 1994, as well as Chile’s National Biodiversity Strategy 2017-2030, especially Strategic Objective 3:Develop a solid institutional structure, good governance and just and equitable distribution of the benets Ѐof biodiversity. This objective specically Ѐincludes as one of its strategic lines of action, to develop, increase and rene economic instruments and mechanisms for Ѐbiodiversity conservation.

Part B. Identifying and Managing Social and Environmental Risks

QUESTION 2: Whatare the Potential Social and Environmental Risks?

QUESTION 3: What is the level of signi�cance of the potential social and environmental risks?Note: Respond to Questions 4 and 5 below before proceeding to Question 6

QUESTION 6: What social and environmental assessment and management measures have been conducted and/or are required to address potential risks (for Risks with Moderate and High Signi�cance)?

Risk Description Impact andProbability(1-5)

Signicance Ѐ(Low, Moderate,High)

Comments Description of assessment and management measures as re�ected in the Project design. If ESIA or SESA is required note that the assessment should consider all potential impacts and risks.

Risk 1. Within Component 2 (IECBs demonstration experiences), there is a risk that as a result of IECBs implementation, marginalized indigenous and non-indigenous people are affected indirectly and/or involuntarily by restrictions of access to certain natural resources, potentially causing economic displacement and impacts on their livelihoo

I:4

P:2

Moderate

Probability is low becauseIECB are voluntary measures therefore their implementation has to be carriedout through a totally participative process that includes consulting all stakeholders in order to reach agreement on how the implementation of these instruments will be designed and executed. Negative impacts on livelihoods are not anticipated -neither in the local communities nor

A Stakeholders Engagement Plan (PRODOC Annex 7) and governance and management arrangements through a participative process(PRODOC Section VIII Governance and Management Arrangements) were developed during PPG phase. The previously mentioned plan, as well as the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) included in the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) (PRODOC Annex 17) ensure that all interested parties are adequately consulted (via FPIC where required) regarding the Project activities -including IECB implementation design and application-, toprevent or mitigate risks.During the PPG phase, possible sites where the demonstration experiences could be developed were visited; contact was made with the organizations’ representatives and an evaluation of site eligibilitywas made through compliance with criteria regarding enabling conditions for Project implementation (PRODOC Annex 11 Prole of ЀTa

ds.

Principle 1 (q3); Principle 3 Standard 5:5.2; and Standard 6: 6.3, 6.6.

among indigenous people- because the management actions under the umbrella of IECBs are designedto improve biodiversity and ecosystems services that communities depend on.

IECBs include the execution of sustainable management practices for nature-based income-producingactivities, as well as conservation and restoration activities. For example, creation and management ofno-take zones for certainmarine resources within AMERBs (Areas for Management and Exploitation ofBenthonic Resources) orwithin ECMPOs (Coastal-Marine Zones for Indigenous Communities).

rget Landscape and Viability Studies), following UNDP’s Social AndEnvironmental Standards and ensuring participation of activities’ bene�ciaries in the Regional Technical Committee in their Broad instances (PRODOC Section VIII).The actions developed in the PPG Phase to ensure the commitmentand participation of the parties are detailed in PRODOC Annex 7.As a preventive risk management measure, a consultation processto conrm indigenous peoples’ Ѐparticipation will be carried out at the beginning of the implementation phase of the Project in the pilotsites where these communities hold natural resources use rights (additional details can be found in the IPPF; prodoc Annex 17).The Project aims to implement IECB in sites where there are indigenous people’s governance structures to test their application in different scenarios that are useful for replication, and has secured preliminary agreements through partners that represent indigenous communities. However, the nal site selection will Ѐlikely be contingenton the consent of communities via a FPIC process, following UNDPSES requirements as described in the IPPF/ESMF, and subsequentmanagement plans to be developed during project implementation.In the event that the indigenous communities decide not to con�rmtheir participation in the project, an eligibility process will be carriedout to establish alternative demonstration experiences with indigenous peoples participation, that comply with IECB enabling conditions (PRODOC Annex 11 Prole of ЀTarget Landscape and Viability Studies) and with UNDP SES following the ESMF/IPPF and any subsequent management plan. As described in the ESMF/IPPF (PRODOC Annex 17) regarding therisk of economic displacement, the procedures for further screening, assessment and management could lead to the development ofa Livelihood Action Plan (LAP) if it is concluded necessary for SEScompliance as part of the demonstration experiences detailed assessments during Project implementation. The project will not support or implement any activities that might cause economic displacement without �rst putting in place the necessary measures to preventand/or mitigate such impacts in line with the SES (and with FPIC processes where required).

Risk 2. There is a risk that promoting sustainable production practices and conservation andrestoration activities aspart of the IECB‘s, could generate some restrictions regarding the exploitation of natural resources (for example, through reserved zonesin marine and coastal e

t ) hi h

I = 3

P = 3

Moderate As part of Component 2, the Project will engage with rural communities, many of which have gaps in gender equity. For example, the marine demonstrationactivities in which artisanal �sheries are mostly dominated by men. The probability of this risk has been categorized as Moderately likely and the impact a

M d t b it i li

The Project has identi�ed the key barriers to women’s participation and empowerment in the correspondent Gender Analysis, and has prepared a Gender Action Plan (PRODOC Annex 8). The Gender Plan will be implemented and will be overseen throughthe Monitoring Plan (Section VII and Annex 3 of the PRODOC) for compliance with the actions in this plan and the gender-sensitive indicators, as well as the budget allocated for this. The monitoring plan includes carrying out a consultancy that will ensure inclusion and monitoring of the gender issues. Women’s participation will be promoted in all Project actions (for ex

l l l ti i t ti t i i lti l l di l

cosystems), which could affect both women and men. Furthermore, there could be restraints on participation of women during Project implementation.

Principle 2 (q2, q4)

s Moderate because it is limited in scale (site-speci�c) and can be avoided ormanaged with the proposed measures.

.

ample, personnel selection, interventions, training, multi-level dialogue – see details on Question 1 of this document) for the purpose ofcoping with the constraints to their participation because of culturalfactors: for example, in the artisanal �sheries reality, which has traditionally been a men’s do. The Project will also promote recognitionof women’s role in nature conservation, which in the past has not been adequately recognized or valued.

In addition, the Project has de�ned a governance model and management arrangements in a participatory process (PRODOC section VIII), which will allow the application of the sustainability approach with the vision of the parties (PRODOC Section VIII). In addition, the Stakeholders Engagement Plan (PRODOC Annex 7) contributes to safeguard the vision of the stakeholders; speci�cally, communities andtheir cultural vision regarding the environment, local governments and other relevant institutions. The IPPF, part of the ESMF (PRODOCAnnex 17) develops a framework to ensure safeguards to indigenous communities participating of this Project. The participation of theprivate sector, other stakeholders and indigenous communities where appropriate, will contribute to include a comprehensive range of visions in the Project management, safeguarding the gender approach, and allowing the monitoring and evaluation of the Project activities, reducing the probability of this risk.

Risk 3. All activities of the Project’s Component 2 (demonstration experiences of IECBs implementation) will be carried out within or adjacent to areas of high conservation value (i.e reforestation with native species), that could be negatively affected if the Project were to be poorly designed or implemented.

Principle 3, Standard 1:1.2; 1.6

I = 3

P = 1

Low The terrestrial and marinedemonstration experiences aim at implementing conservation and restorationactivities to safeguard ecosystem services. All thepilot sites have been selected because they have high value for biodiversity and ecosystem services. The probability of these measures not working as intended is considered slightbecause they will be designed with the guidance ofexperts in the �eld (e.g. consultants, CONAF) based on the best available science and approval of localcommunities. See more details in PRODOC SectionIX Budget Notes and Annex 6 Overview of TechnicalConsultancies.

-

Risk 4. The EcosystemServices Retribution (E

I: 3 Moderate By establishing non-resource extraction areas as pa

As a management measure to address this risk, the ESR scheme inthe marine demonstration experiences includes the design establis

Services Retribution (ESR) scheme in the marine demonstration experiences are expected toresult in increased biodiversity and biomass within the dened Ѐnon-extraction zones; this may increase vulnerabilityto thefts and poaching.

Principle 3, Standard 1:1.7; 1.11

P: 3rce-extraction areas as part of the ESR scheme in the marine demonstration experiences, it is expectedthat biodiversity and biomass will increase, to be conrmed Ѐby scientic Ѐstudies. This may bring adverse effects, such as increased thefts of resources by illegal users of the marineareas.

Based on previous experiences the probability of this to happen is moderatelylikely and the impact is moderate because is limitedin scale (site-specic) Ѐandcan be managed with locally accepted measures.

the marine demonstration experiences includes the design, establishment, monitoring and reporting of a Surveillance System of remote cameras and a Community Surveillance System led by the local communities with use-rights on marine resources (indigenous and non-indigenous) to minimize and prevent thefts (See details in the PRODOC Section V Outcomes and associations and Annex 6 Overview of technical consultancies /Section X Total Budget and Workplan,Budget Note 13).

A Plan for capacity building will be drafted and implemented (PRODOC Component 3 / Section VI) for sustainable management and compliance with rules in the extraction of marine resources. The experience and lessons learned from surveillance will be systematized and will serve as input for capacity building.

Risk 5: Project outcomes regarding enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services in the demonstration experiences are vulnerable to possible impacts fromclimate change (e.g. increases in ocean’s temperature; exposure to prolonged droughts, among other impacts).

Principle 3, Standard 2:2.2

I: 3

P: 3

Moderate Climate change is a global phenomenon that also affects the Project’s intervention zones, and that could affect its outcomes in the future. However, it is notas yet possible to comprehend the extent of its impacts. Concern over climactic variability and climatechange is inherent in thisProject.

The development of IECB demonstration experiences in terrestrial and marine ecosystems includes the design and implementation of sustainable management measures that will consider climate change criteria. The Project will also develop policy tools and a governance that contribute to conservation and to increase resiliency of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The results of these measures willcontribute to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change (PRODOC Section V Outcomes and Associations / Section VI Project Results Framework and Multi Year Work Plan - Annex 2).

The outputs and targets de�ned in Components 1 and 2 aim at reinforcing institutional management of biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation (water and marine resources) and climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Specic Ѐindicators for sustainable management measures were established to underline carbon sequestration by native forests under improved management in the terrestrial demonstration experiences.And, regarding the marine demonstration experiences, indicators ofsustainable management measures were developed to underline the increase in biodiversity and biomass (PRODOC Section VI ProjectResults Framework and Annex 3 Monitoring Plan). These indicatorswill be monitored as described in the PRODOC Section VII and Annex 3.

Risk 6. Child labour could be used in small-scale agriculture /forestry in properties part of th ESR h i t

I:4

P:1

Moderate In Chile, child labour is absolutely prohibited and the country has rati�ed all international conventions ab t it Th th b bili

Particular attention will be given to ensure that no child labor is involved in activities associated with Project implementation, through the following measures:

he ESR scheme in terrestrial ecosystems or in�shing activities associated to the ESR scheme in marine ecosystems (Component 2)

Principle3, Standard 3:3.8

bout it. Thus, the probability was categorized as slight. Nevertheless, there isstill child labour in some places of the country and in certain economic activities.

Impact is severe becauseit entails adverse consequences to people but theseare predictable and reversible.

The UNDP Country O�ce and the PMU will promote strict compliance with the UNDP SES, and national legislation that prohibits child labor, through awareness raising about this issue in the sites and communities of demonstration experiences, and training to Project staff, partners and consultants.

Communication of the child labor prohibition will be included in the Terms of Reference for consultancies and services and included inall contracts and donation agreements.

The PMU will ensure that all actions and service contracts impose the prohibition of child labor. The UNDP will ensure adequate compliance. Implementation of the monitoring plan will ensure oversightand reporting on adequate compliance with these measures.

Instructions will be given and follow-up carried out with the stakeholders involved, especially the Project team, the conservation guarantors and the local organizations involved.

The Plan and actions of monitoring and evaluation (PRODOC Section VII and Annex 3) will ensure and inform about compliance with the measures that seek to prevent child labor; speci�cally, when contracting services; in carrying out consultancies (PRODOC Annex 6 and 9); in development of land and marine demonstration experienceswhere sustainable management actions are carried out (Component 2).

Risk 7. Project’s area of inuence includes Ѐindigenous peoples. Thereis a risk that these communities may be excluded from the decisionsthat will affect them (directly or indirectly), that they will not bene�t equally from the Project,and/or that there will be restrictions in their access to resources associated with the implementation of IECB’s. Inaddition, there could besome ideological resistance to IECB’s because

I: 4

P:2

Moderate IECB’s constitute a market-based solution for conservation in which there could be (or not) monetary transactions.

Probability of this risk hasbeen categorized as Not Likely because to implement the demonstration experiences the Project will use community-based governance structures that already exist in each pilot site,and that give voice to indigenous peoples (i.e CAPRs in the terrestrial DEs), orare the voice of indigenou

iti (i ECMP

Particular attention will be given to ensure that indigenous peoplesparticipate of decision making and benet Ѐfrom the Project outcomes, through the following measures:

Implementation of the IECB’s will be carried out within a frameworkof sensibilization, generating capacities and support. Each Projectactivity will be carried out through a process of critical re�ection and feed-back with both men and women indigenous participants, which will allow a detailed understanding of the scope of these instruments and to take the necessary safeguards to avoid negative impacts in their participation and in their territories.

The ESMF that includes an IPPF (PRODOC Annex 17) developed during PPG phase will be monitored during Project implementation aspart of the M&E plan (PRODOC Section VII Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan / Annex 3 Monitoring Plan ). In addition, both Frameworks include details about their monitoring, and about the development of subsequent management plans (if any).

they are market -basedsolutions.

Principle 3, Standard 6:6.1; 6.3; 6.6

s communities (i.e. ECMPO in the Caulín’s marine DE).

If indigenous peoples are left out of the Project decision making and short and long-term benets, Ѐthenthe impact will be at leastSevere because the ultimate goal of the Project is to enhance to contributions of nature to people.

e t o subseque t a age e t p a s ( a y).

The IPPF describes the measures that the Government of Chile hasalready implemented to consult about the institutionalization of IECBs as mechanisms to increase protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services outside ocial Ѐ protected areas. This subject was already covered by a national indigenous peoples’ consultation in thecontext of the law proposal to create the Service of Biodiversity andProtected Areas (SBAP by its Spanish acronym), which includes theuse and promotion of IECBs. This consultation was done in all regions of the country, including communities from the localities where the Project will implement its demonstration experiences.

The IPPF also establishes the procedure to ensure that indigenouspeople are adequately consulted (complying with the UNDP directives and Chilean legislation), to encourage their active participation and to provides relevant information about the bene�ts of the Project. Measures are outlined to prevent and mitigate any potential negative impact, and to adhere to the UNDP requirements for Prior, Free and Informed Consent (FPIC). The IPPF also considers the need to prepare an Indigenous Peoples Plan as one of the management plans(scaled to be site-level) potentially required if concluded by the FPIC process to be initiated at the beginning of the Project implementation.

To establish the appropriate conditions to implement the demonstration experiences (DE) of Component 2, the Project has respected the local governance structures in which the related indigenous peoples participate. The Project initially engaged them through trustedpartners that participate or manage these governance structures. Inthe marine DE in Caulín, the Project partnered with the NGO CostaHumboldt. This organization has been instrumental in helping the indigenous communities of Caulín to declare their traditional sites forshing Ѐand other coastal uses as an ocial Ѐ Coastal and Marine Zone for Indigenous Communities (ECMPO), �gure that provides legalprotection from other non-consuetudinary uses and from other potential non-indigenous illegal users. In the terrestrial DEs for Ecosystem Services Retribution (ESR) schemes, the Project partnered with Rural Drinking Water Committees (CAPRs, by its Spanish acronym) that represent the interests of the community (indigenous and non-indigenous) in water consumption and which will eventually become intermediaries in the ESR scheme to be developed by the Project (inthe case of Mashue, the ESR scheme already exists and the Projectwill support its improvement). During PPG Phase, given the COVID-19 sanitary measures put in place, the Project and partners could not execute FPIC directly and in presence in each of the pilot sites where there are indigenous peoples, to make it a culturally pertinent process. Alternative remote methods were not an option because oflimitations in connectivity and because these were not appropriatechannels of communication to engage these indigenous communities. Thus, the Project and its partners will consult indigenous comm

unities in the Project’s intervention areas in detail about the objectives, scope and expected outcomes of the DEs once the Project starts, as its �rst priority. This will enable communities to decide about their involvement in the Project and conrm Ѐtheir participation, onceinformed in more detail (via FPIC where determined necessary per the SES).

Component 2 also includes the development of a Financing Strategy focusing on the ESR scheme but also exploring other IECB and sources of funding that can be accessed by the indigenous communities and their technical advisors for the long-term sustainability of the demonstration experiences (PRODOC Section V Project Results Framework and Annex 2 Multi Year Work Plan (Outcome 2 -Output 6 -Activities 6.1). See details on the PRODOC Annex 6 Overview of technical consultancies: Conservation Guarantor and Consultant to consolidate nancing Ѐstrategy for IECB project model (PRODOC Section IX Budget Note).

Component 3 on knowledge management includes experience sharing between peers, so that those who have implemented these mechanisms can share their experiences and become familiar with theirresults and bene�ts; as well as experience transfer at midterm andupon nalization of Ѐthe Project.

The Project has a monitoring plan (PRODOC Section VII and Annex3) that will address appropriate compliance with participation, indigenous issues and gender issues.

The ESMF and IPPF describe a mechanism for presenting and resolving grievances which will be maintained throughout Project implementation to be used by any stakeholder involved including indigenous peoples’ matters.

Chile is signatory of the ILO Convention 169 so the Project will comply with all associated requirements, in addition to the UNDP SES requirements. Participation in the Project and IECB application will be completely voluntary and Project implementation will be carried out through a participative process that includes indigenous peoples.

Risk 8. A culturally appropriate FPIC processhas not been developed during PPG phase inthe demonstration experiences where there are indigenous peoples, therefore indigenous peoples might still decidenot to con�rm their parti i ti i th j t

I: 4

P:1

Moderate Probability of this risk is Slight because local partners and their represented indigenous peoples are aware of the project and preliminarily are eager to participate in a project that willhelp them to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystemservices through different

h i

A culturally appropriate FPIC process will be developed with the indigenous peoples once the Project starts its implementation, being the �rst priority, and in partnership with the NGO Costa Humboldt for the marine demonstration experience in Caulín and with the CAPRsMashue and Liquiñe in the terrestrial demonstration experiences (additional details are presented in the PRODOC Annex 17 ESMF/IPPF).

The FPIC process will be included in the scope of work of the donation agreement with the NGO Costa Humboldt and the CAPRs Mashue and Liquiñe and in the technical consultancy for gender and cult

ticipation in the projector activities might proceed without their consent.

Principle 3, Standard 6:6.4

mechanisms.

Impact is Severe becauseof the importance of FPIC.

ue and Liquiñe, and in the technical consultancy for gender and cultural pertinence (PRODOC Annex 6 Overview of Technical Consultancies).

QUESTION 4: What is the overall Project risk categorization?

Select one (see SESP for guidance) Comments

Low Risk ☐ Moderate Risk X The implementation of economic instruments for the conserva

tion of biodiversity could be associated with restrictions on current practices of the stakeholders involved, and with a differentiated impact on women and indigenous peoples. For this reason, the measures for mitigating risks include a Stakeholders Engagement Plan (PRODOC Annex 7), a Gender Action Plan (PRODOC Annex 8), and the ESMF)/IPPF (PRODOC Annex 17) developed during Project design. The implementation of these frameworks will conrm Ѐthe additional management plans necessary for SES compliance, which will be developed during Project implementation.

High Risk ☐

QUESTION 5: Based on the identi�ed risks and risk categorization, what requirements of the SES are relevant?

Check all that apply Comments

Principle 1: Human Rights X See comments under risk 1 and 6

Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment X See comments under risk 2

1. Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource Management X See comments under risk 3 and 4

2. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation X See comments under risk 5

3. Community Health, Safety and Working Conditions X

4. Cultural Heritage ☐

5. Displacement and Resettlement X See comments under risk 1

6. Indigenous Peoples X See comments under risks 1, 7 and 8

7. Pollution Prevention and Resource E�ciency ☐

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/operations1/undp-social-and-environmental-screening-procedure.html

Final Sign Off

Signature Date Description

QA Assessor UNDP staff member responsible for the Project, typically a UNDP Programme O�cer. Final signature con�rms they have “checked” to ensure that the SESP is adequately conducted.

QA Approver UNDP senior manager, typically the UNDP Deputy Country Director (DCD), Country Director (CD), Deputy Resident Representative (DRR), or Resident Representative (RR). The QA Approver cannot also be the QA Assessor. Final signature con�rms they have “cleared” the SESP prior to submittal to the PAC.

PAC Chair UNDP chair of the PAC. In some cases, PAC Chair may also be the QA Approver. Final signature conrms that Ѐthe SESP was considered as part of the project appraisal and considered in recommendations of the PAC.

SESP Attachment 1. Social and Environmental Risk Screening Checklist

Checklist Potential Social and Environmental Risks

Principles 1: Human Rights Answer (Yes/N

o)

1. Could the Project lead to adverse impacts on enjoyment of the human rights (civil, political, economic, social or cultural) of the affected population and particularly of marginalized groups?

No

2. Is there a likelihood that the Project would have inequitable or discriminatory adverse impacts on affected populations, particularly people living in poverty or marginalized or excluded individuals or groups? [1]

No

3. Could the Project potentially restrict availability, quality of and access to resources or basic services, in particular to marginalized individuals or groups?

Yes

4. Is there a likelihood that the Project would exclude any potentially affected stakeholders, in particular marginalized groups, from fully participating in decisions that may affect them?

No

5. Is there a risk that duty-bearers do not have the capacity to meet their obligations in theProject?

No

6. Is there a risk that rights-holders do not have the capacity to claim their rights? No

7. Have local communities or individuals, given the opportunity, raised human rights concerns regarding the Project during the stakeholder engagement process?

No

8. Is there a risk that the Project would exacerbate conicts Ѐamong and/or the risk of violence to project-affected communities and individuals?

No

Principle 2: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

1. Is there a likelihood that the proposed Project would have adverse impacts on gender equality and/or the situation of women and girls?

No

2. Would the Project potentially reproduce discriminations against women based on gender, especially regarding participation in design and implementation or access to opportunitiesand bene�ts?

Yes

3. Have women’s groups/leaders raised gender equality concerns regarding the Project during the stakeholder engagement process and has this been included in the overall Project proposal and in the risk assessment?

No

4. Would the Project potentially limit women’s ability to use, develop and protect natural resources, taking into account different roles and positions of women and men in accessing environmental goods and services?

For example, activities that could lead to natural resources degradation or depletion incommunities who depend on these resources for their livelihoods and well being

Yes

Principle 3: Environmental Sustainability: Screening questions regarding environmental risks are encompassed by the specic ЀStandard-related questions below

Standard 1: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management

1.1 Would the Project potentially cause adverse impacts to habitats (e.g. modied, Ѐnatural,and critical habitats) and/or ecosystems and ecosystem services? For example, through habitat loss, conversion or degradation, fragmentation, hydrological changes

No

1.2 Are any Project activities proposed within or adjacent to critical habitats and/or environmentally sensitive areas, including legally protected areas (e.g. nature reserve, national park),areas proposed for protection, or recognized as such by authoritative sources and/or indigenous peoples or local communities?

Yes

1.3 Does the Project involve changes to the use of lands and resources that may have adverse impacts on habitats, ecosystems, and/or livelihoods? (Note: if restrictions and/or limitations of access to lands would apply, refer to Standard 5)

No

1.4 Would Project activities pose risks to endangered species? No

1.5 Would the Project pose a risk of introducing invasive alien species? No

1.6 Does the Project involve harvesting of natural forests, plantation development, or reforestation?

Yes

1.7 Does the Project involve the production and/or harvesting of sh Ѐpopulations or other aquatic species?

No

q p

1.8 Does the Project involve signicant Ѐextraction, diversion or containment of surface or ground water?

For example, construction of dams, reservoirs, river basin developments, groundwaterextraction

No

1.9 Does the Project involve utilization of genetic resources? (e.g. collection and/or harvesting, commercial development)

No

1.10 Would the Project generate potential adverse transboundary or global environmental concerns?

No

1.11 Would the Project result in secondary or consequential development activities which could lead to adverse social and environmental effects, or would it generate cumulative impactswith other known existing or planned activities in the area?

For example, a new road through forested lands will generate direct environmental andsocial impacts (e.g. felling of trees, earthworks, potential relocation of inhabitants). The new road may also facilitate encroachment on lands by illegal settlers or generate unplanned commercial development along the route, potentially in sensitive areas. These are indirect, secondary, or induced impacts that need to be considered. Also, if similar developments in the same forested area are planned, then cumulative impacts of multiple activities (even if not part of the same Project) need to be considered.

Yes

Standard 2: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

2.1 Will the proposed Project result in signi�cant greenhouse gas emissions or may exacerbate climate change?

No

2.2 Would the potential outcomes of the Project be sensitive or vulnerable to potential impacts of climate change?

Yes

2.3 Is the proposed Project likely to directly or indirectly increase social and environmental vulnerability to climate change now or in the future (also known as maladaptive practices)?

For example, changes to land use planning may encourage further development of �oodplains,potentially increasing the population’s vulnerability to climate change, speci�cally �ooding

No

Standard 3: Community Health, Safety and Working Conditions

3.1 Would elements of Project construction, operation, or decommissioning pose potentialsafety risks to local communities?

No

3.2 Would the Project pose potential risks to community health and safety due to the transport, storage, and use and/or disposal of hazardous or dangerous materials (e.g. explosives, fuel and other chemicals during construction and operation)?

No

3.3 Does the Project involve large-scale infrastructure development (e.g. dams, roads, buildings)?

No

3.4 Would failure of structural elements of the Project pose risks to communities? (e.g. collapse of buildings or infrastructure)

No

[2]

3.5 Would the proposed Project be susceptible to or lead to increased vulnerability to earthquakes, subsidence, landslides, erosion, �ooding or extreme climatic conditions?

No

3.6 Would the Project result in potential increased health risks (e.g. from water-borne or other vector-borne diseases or communicable infections such as HIV/AIDS)?

No

3.7 Does the Project pose potential risks and vulnerabilities related to occupational healthand safety due to physical, chemical, biological, and radiological hazards during Project construction, operation, or decommissioning?

No

3.8 Does the Project involve support for employment or livelihoods that may fail to complywith national and international labor standards (i.e. principles and standards of ILO fundamental conventions)?

Yes

3.9 Does the Project engage security personnel that may pose a potential risk to health andsafety of communities and/or individuals (e.g. due to a lack of adequate training or accountability)?

No

Standard 4: Cultural Heritage

4.1 Will the proposed Project result in interventions that would potentially adversely impactsites, structures, or objects with historical, cultural, artistic, traditional or religious values or intangible forms of culture (e.g. knowledge, innovations, practices)? (Note: Projects intended to protect and conserve Cultural Heritage may also have inadvertent adverse impacts)

No

4.2 Does the Project propose utilizing tangible and/or intangible forms of cultural heritage for commercial or other purposes?

No

Standard 5: Displacement and Resettlement

5.1 Would the Project potentially involve temporary or permanent and full or partial physical displacement?

No

5.2 Would the Project possibly result in economic displacement (e.g. loss of assets or access to resources due to land acquisition or access restrictions – even in the absence of physical relocation)?

Yes

5.3 Is there a risk that the Project would lead to forced evictions?[3] No

5.4 Would the proposed Project possibly affect land tenure arrangements and/or community based property rights/customary rights to land, territories and/or resources?

No

Standard 6: Indigenous Peoples

6.1 Are indigenous peoples present in the Project area (including Project area of in�uence)?

Yes

6.2 Is it likely that the Project or portions of the Project will be located on lands and territories claimed by indigenous peoples?

No

6.3 Would the proposed Project potentially affect the human rights, lands, natural resources, territories, and traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples (regardless of whether indigenous peoples possess the legal titles to such areas, whether the Project is located within or outside of the lands and territories inhabited by the affected peoples or whether the indigenous pe

Yes

de of the lands and territories inhabited by the affected peoples, or whether the indigenous peoples are recognized as indigenous peoples by the country in question)?

If the answer to the screening question 6.3 is “yes” the potential risk impacts are considered potentially severe and/or critical and the Project would be categorized as either Moderate or High Risk.

6.4 Has there been an absence of culturally appropriate consultations carried out with theobjective of achieving FPIC on matters that may affect the rights and interests, lands, resources, territories and traditional livelihoods of the indigenous peoples concerned?

Yes

6.5 Does the proposed Project involve the utilization and/or commercial development of natural resources on lands and territories claimed by indigenous peoples?

No

6.6 Is there a potential for forced eviction or the whole or partial physical or economic displacement of indigenous peoples, including through access restrictions to lands, territories, andresources?

Yes

6.7 Would the Project adversely affect the development priorities of indigenous peoples asde�ned by them?

No

6.8 Would the Project potentially affect the physical and cultural survival of indigenous peoples?

No

6.9 Would the Project potentially affect the Cultural Heritage of indigenous peoples, including through the commercialization or use of their traditional knowledge and practices?

No

Standard 7: Pollution Prevention and Resource E�ciency

7.1 Would the Project potentially result in the release of pollutants to the environment due to routine or non-routine circumstances with the potential for adverse local, regional, and/or transboundary impacts?

No

7.2 Would the proposed Project potentially result in the generation of waste (both hazardous and non-hazardous)?

No

7.3 Will the proposed Project potentially involve the manufacture, trade, release, and/or useof hazardous chemicals and/or materials? Does the Project propose use of chemicals or materials subject to international bans or phase-outs?

For example, DDT, PCBs and other chemicals listed in international conventions such as the Stockholm Conventions on Persistent Organic Pollutants or the Montreal Protocol

No

7.4 Will the proposed Project involve the application of pesticides that may have a negativeeffect on the environment or human health?

No

7.5 Does the Project include activities that require signicant Ѐconsumption of raw materials, energy, and/or water?

No

[1] Prohibited grounds of discrimination include race, ethnicity, gender, age, language, disability, sexual orientation, religion, political or other opinion, nationalor social or geographical origin, property, birth or other status including as an indigenous person or as a member of a minority. References to “women andmen” or similar is understood to include women and men, boys and girls, and other groups discriminated against based on their gender identities, such astransgender people and transsexuals.

In regards to CO ‘signi�cant emissions’ corresponds generally to more than 25,000 tons per year (from both direct and indirect sources). [The GuidanceNote on Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation provides additional information on GHG emissions.]

[3] Forced evictions include acts and/or omissions involving the coerced or involuntary displacement of individuals, groups, or communities from homesand/or lands and common property resources that were occupied or depended upon, thus eliminating the ability of an individual, group, or community toreside or work in a particular dwelling, residence, or location without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protections.

[2]2,

Supporting DocumentsUpload available ESS supporting documents.

Title Module Submitted

PIMS 5794 Chile Economic Instruments_ESMF-IPPF_April2021

CEO Endorsement ESS

PIMS 5794 Chile Economic Instruments SESP_April2021 CEO Endorsement ESS

PIMS 5794 Chile Economic Instruments SESP CEO Endorsement ESS

https://gefportal.worldbank.org/api/spapi/LoadDocument?fileName=https%3A%2F%2Fworldbankgroup.sharepoint.com%2Fsites%2Fgefportal%2FGEFDocuments%2F1c01e443-5256-e911-a83b-000d3a375888%2Fceoendorsement%2FESSSupportingDocument_PIMS%205794%20Chile%20Economic%20InstrumentsESMF-IPPFApril2021.docx

https://gefportal.worldbank.org/api/spapi/LoadDocument?fileName=https%3A%2F%2Fworldbankgroup.sharepoint.com%2Fsites%2Fgefportal%2FGEFDocuments%2F1c01e443-5256-e911-a83b-000d3a375888%2Fceoendorsement%2FESSSupportingDocument_PIMS%205794%20Chile%20Economic%20Instruments%20SESPApril2021.docx

https://gefportal.worldbank.org/api/spapi/LoadDocument?fileName=https%3A%2F%2Fworldbankgroup.sharepoint.com%2Fsites%2Fgefportal%2FGEFDocuments%2F1c01e443-5256-e911-a83b-000d3a375888%2Fceoendorsement%2FESSSupportingDocument_PIMS%205794%20Chile%20Economic%20Instruments%20SESP.docx

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK (either copy and paste here the framework from the Agency document, or providereference to the page in the project document where the framework could be found).

This project will contribute to the following Sustainable Development Goal (s): The IECB Project relates to Chile’s commitment to Sustainable DevelopmentObjectives (SDO) and specically Ѐcontributes the following: SDO 6, Guarantee the availability of water and its sustainable management and its sanitation; SDO 13 Actions in the realm of climate; SDO 14, Undersea life; and SDO 15, Life in land ecosystems.This project will contribute to the following country outcome (UNDAF/CPD, RPD, GPD): In 2022, State institutionality on the national, regional and local levels will be reinforced for mitigating and adapting to climate change, sustainable management and preservation of the natural resources, ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as management of socio-environmental risks and con�icts (CPD/UNDAF 2019-2022). Outcome 2.4.1: Legal and regulatory systems sensitive to the gender dimension (gender-responsive), policies and institutions strengthened and solutions adopted for addressing conservation, sustainable use and equitable distribution of the benets Ѐof natural resources, in accordance with the international conventions and national legislation.

Objective and Outcome Indicators

(no more than a total of 21 indicators)

Baseline

Mid-term Target

End of Project Target

Project Objective: Improvenational �nancing of biodiversity throughthe design, implementationand optimization of market-based economic instruments, that reinforce public .nancing and facilitate the economic contribution of the private sector to maintaining Chile’s natural capital.

Mandatory Indicator 1: # direct project bene�ciaries disaggregated by gender (individual people)

279, including:72 women207 men

534 direct bene�ciaries, including:161 women373 men

1,334 direct bene�ciaries, including:401 women933 men

Core indicator 4. Area of landscapes under improved practices (hectares; excluding protected areas) Indicator 4.1: · Area of landscapes under improved management tobene�t biodiv ersity (qualitative assessment, non-certi�ed)

0 ha of landscapes under improved management to bene�t biodiv ersity and drinking water provision in Los Ríos Region

12,228 ha of landscapes under improved management to bene�t biodiversity and drinking water provision in Los RíosRegion

100,000 ha of landscapes under improved management to bene�t biodiversity and drinkingwater provision in Los Ríos Region.

Core indicator 6. Greenhousegas emission mitigated Indicator 6.1. Carbon sequestered or emissions avoided insector of Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

0 metric tons of CO2e

------------

89,890 metric tons of CO2e in Los Ríos Region

Project comp Institutional framework, governance and tools for the application of economic instruments for the conservation and sustainable use of bio

[1] [2]

[3]

j ponent 1

g ppdiversity and its ecosystem services (IECB) in land, fresh water, marine and coastal ecosystems.

Project Outcome 1 Institutional and governance system andtechnical capability established / strengthened for IECB development, application, monitoring and evaluation.

Indicator 5 Number of intersectoral biodiversity work committees institutionalized and functioning in IECB development, application, monitoring and evaluation at the national and regionallevels.

0 One (1) Project National Technical Committee (NTC) (1) and (3) three Project Regional Technical Committees (RTC), with broad instances,multi-sectorial, established and workingto support IECB design, development,application and optimization, monitoring and evaluation.

One (1) Governance model for IECB development, application, monitoring and evaluation through (1) one inter-sectorial National Biodiversity Committee and (3) three Regional Committees strengthened, and institutionalized through administrative act.

Indicator 6 Number and type of regulation procedures and tools, de�ned in administrative acts thatmaterialize public policy decisions regarding the application and diversi�cation of E conomic Instruments for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Conservation (IECB).

Law 19.300 on General Environment Bases, Law 20.930 Derecho Real de Conservación; SEIA Regulations. Standard for appropriate implementation of the CE mechanism, pending validation and institutionalization. Preliminary guidelines for the implementation of the mechanism forappropriate Biodiversity Offsets for loss of land biodiversity within the SEIA framework, in the processof validation and institutionalization. Information System for monitoring of Biodiversity (SIMBIO) administrated by the EM.

Total of (8) eight Guidelines drafted for the implementationof IECB mechanisms: preliminary ESR guidelines for land and continental aquatic environments (1)and marine and coastal environments(1); guidelines for Biodiversity Offsets inland and continentalaquatic environments (1) and preliminary marine-coastal Biodiversity Offset guidelines (1); preliminary guidelines for monitoring of Biodiversity Offsets in land environments (1) and continental aquatic and marine-coastal environments (1), within the framework of environmental follow-up of the Environmental Quali�cation Resolutions (EQR); preliminary CE guidelines in land and continental aquatic environments (1);

Total of four (4) IECB mechanisms achieved comprising eight (8) operational guides and aninformation system (1):

· Process of environmental evaluation of investment projects strengthened through incorporating (1) one marine and land Biodiversity Offsets Mechanism via administrative act that institutionalizes the validated Guidelines for: i)Biodiversity Offsets procedure (SEA) (2); ii) Technical guidelines for Biodiversity Offsets oversight (2) and electronic register of offset measures (EMS) (1); and iii) Biodiversity Offsets repository regulations (EM) (1).

· A Retribution Mechanism (1) for Ecosystem services (ESR) in land and marine environments (implementation guidelines and contract model(s)) institutionalized through administrative acts (EM) (2).

· A Mechanism for Derecho Real de Conservación (DRC) (1) strengthened via administrativeacts (1) that institutionalizes DRC implementation guidelines (EM).

· A Certi�cation Mechanism (1) for Biodiv ersityand ecosystem services that institutionalizesthe guidelines for certi�cation of biodiversityand ecosystem services (1) through Regulations (1).

· A digital information system (1) for the application, monitoring and evaluation of IECB mechanisms institutionalized (EM), inter-operativewith the National System of Biodiversity Infor

( )

and preliminary guidelines for biodiversity and ecosystem services certi�cation(1). Design of an information system (1) forIECB mechanism implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and of an interactive multi-purpose digital Platform (1) for IECB application, monitoring and evaluation.

mation and Monitoring (SIMBIO).

Indicator 7. Number of measures for strengthening institutional capabilities as a result of the application of IECB’s for biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation.

National Information System for Environmental Oversight (SNIFA) administered by the EMS. National Environmental information System (SINIA) administered bythe EM. National Rural Development Policythat incorporates a focus on environmental sustainability/ ODEPA. Green Bonds Initiative led by the Finance Ministry. Recent approval of the Green Fund for supporting implementation of the National Strategy for ClimateChange and Vegetational Resources / CONAF.

0 Information System (1) of the Environment Superintendency (EMS) strengthened for monitoring offset measures committed to in the Environmental Quali�cation Resolutions (EQR) of the System for Evaluation of Environmental Impact. Contribution to the Green Bonds Framework initiative(Finance Ministry), with an IECB project model (1) for land environments and one for marineenvironments (1), recognized as “electable green expenditures” and NbS’s, that reinforce �nancing for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Contribution with land demonstration experiences (2) and marine experiences (4) and green project models and NbS’s (2), to be included in compliance with and updating the National Determined Contribution (NDC) (2021 – 2025). Recognition through Administrative acts (1)(SISS/DOH) of NbS’s in infrastructure investments for rural and urban potable water supplythrough the results of demonstration experiences in IECB mechanisms. Contributions to implement and improve the

Contributions to implement and improve thesustainability and climate change Policies, Strategies and Plans of the forestry-agriculture-livestock sector through the results of IECB demonstration experiences and NbS’s.

Outputs to achieve Outcome 1

1. 1. Multi-sectorial coordination mechanisms with the participation of public and private stakeholders, designed and implemented tosupport IECB application on the national and regional scale.2. 2. Technical IECB guidelines and proposals for regulations for their application, monitoring and evaluation in land, fresh water andmarine-coastal environments.3. 3. Multi-purpose interactive digital IECB Platform for project typologies for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and an Information System for IECB implementation, monitoring and evaluation.4. 4. Project models founded in Nature -based Solutions recognized as “electable green expenditures”.

Project component 2

Application of IECB mechanisms including Biodiversity Offsets for residual impacts on biodiversity and for Ecosystem Services Retribution in demonstration projects.

Outcome 2 Biodiversity and ecosystem services inpriority productive land andmarine-coastal landscapes, are maintained and improved throughthe development of IECB demonstrationexperiences(DE’s) that make possiblean increase inpublic and private �nancing for sustainable use and conservation.

Indicator 8 Number of Demonstration Experiences (DE’s) for IECB application executed in productive landscapes belonging to land, continental aquatic and marine and coastal ecosystems.

ESR DE in Marine andCoastal ecosystem inAMERB Ventanas andAMERB in Maitencillo (Valparaíso Region) ESR DE in land ecosystem in the community of Mashue, La Unión Township, Los Ríos Region.

Total of (8) IECB DE’s in land and continental aquatic ecosystems:· ESR application DE in Mashue (1) and ESR DE in Liquiñe(1)· DE for possible application of CE (4): one in a land ecosystem in Mashue (1) and in a continental aquatic ecosystem inwetlands (3)· DE for Biodiversity Offsets (1)(application of level one of methodological guidelines) in landecosystem in Mashue and Liquiñe for preparing landholdings to be receptors of offset measures.· DE for application of preliminary guidelines with criteriafor a proposal for Biodiversityand Ecosystem Services Certi�cation (1) in sites where conservation actions are being implemented in land ecosystems inMashue and Liquiñe. Total of three IECB DE’s (3) inmarine and coastal ecosystems:· One DE for ESR application (1) in four marine and coastal ecosystems (4): i) AMERB Ventanas (1) and ii) AMERB Mai

Total of (8) eight IECB DE’s in land and continental aquatic ecosystems with validation of IECB mechanism guidelines, intervention model,governance model and information system:· DE for ESR application in Mashue (1)and Liquiñe (1).· DE for possible application of DRC(4): one in a land ecosystem in Mashue (1)and in a continental aquatic ecosystem in wetlands (3).· DE for Biodiversity Offsets (1) (application and validation of level one of the methodological guidelines) in land ecosystemsin Mashue and Liquiñe for preparing landholdings as receptors of offset measures.· DE for application and validation of guidelines with criteria for proposal for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Certi�cation (1) in sites where conservation actions are being implemented in land ecosystems in Mashue andLiquiñe. Total of three DE’s for IECB in marine and coastal ecosystems with validation of ECB,mechanism guidelines, intervention and governance model and information system:· One DE for ESR application in four marine and coastal ecosystems (4): i) AMERB Ventanas (1), ii) AMERB Maitencillo (1), iii) ECMPO Caulín (1) and iv) AMERB Chepu (1).· One Biodiversity Offsets DE (1) (application and validation of part one of the methodological guidelines) in four marine and coastal ecosystems (4): i) AMERB Ventanas (1)and ii) AMERB Maitencillo (1) iii) ECMPO Caul

entanas (1) and ii) AMERB Maitencillo (1), iii) ECMPO Caulín(1) and iv) AMERB Chepu (1).· One DE for Biodiversity Offsets (1) (application of proposal of part one of the methodological guidelines) in four DE’s in marine and coastal ecosystems (4): i) AMERB Ventanas (1)and ii) AMERB Maitencillo (1)),iii) ECMPO Caulín (1) and iv) AMERB Chepu (1), for preparingsites as receptors of offset measures. · One DE for application ofguidelines proposal with criteria for Biodiversity and ecosystem services Certi�cation (1) inmarine sites where conservation actions are being implemented in marine and coastal ecosystems in AMERB’s Ventanas(1) and Maitencillo (1), ECMPOCaulín (1) and AMERB Chepu(1).

and ii) AMERB Maitencillo (1), iii) ECMPO Caulín (1) and iv) AMERB Chepu (1), for preparingsites as offset measure receptors. · One DE for application and validation ofcriteria for Biodiversity and ecosystem services Certi�cation (1) in four sites (4) where conservation actions are being carried out in marine and coastal ecosystems: AMERBs Ventanas (1) and Maitencillo (1), ECMPO Caulín (1) and AMERB Chepu (1).

Indicator 9 Number of sectorial measures identi�ed and implementedthat contribute to the increase in public and private �nancing for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Financial Strategy: mobilization of resourcesfor the National Strategy for Biodiversity / Bio�n Chile. Environmental Policy for Sustainable Development. Green Bonds Framework 2018.

Four Financing Strategies (4) developed and being implemented for land and marine and coastal ESR IECB demonstration experiences. Four Sectorial Measures (4) identi�ed that link IECB’ s with public and private initiatives thatpromote �nancing for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Six Financing Strategies (6) implemented, optimized and validated for the ESR IECB land andmarine and coastal demonstration experiences. Six Sectorial Measures (6) implemented that link IECB application, increase �nancing for biodiversity and ecosystem services. One Financing Strategy (1) for increasing public and private �nancing through IECB implementation for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Outputs to achieve Outcome 2.

5. 5. Demonstration experiences (DE) for IECB mechanisms accompanied by a sub-national governance model.6. 6. Proposal for a Strategy to increase �nancing for conser vation of biodiversity and ecosystem services through IECB application.

Project component 3

1 Knowledge management, learning, monitoring and evaluation for effective IECB implementation.2

Outcome 3 Technical capabilities established and knowledge increased for IECB

Indicator 10 Percentage of increase in knowledge of direct bene�ciaries and strategic partners of the Project, in activities for strengthening capabilities regardi

72 women207 men 0 men and women (partner institutions).

40% of participants in activities for strengthening capabilitiescon�rm an incr ease in knowledge equal to or greater than 70% in the training material. (30% are women)

70% of participants in activities for strengthening capabilities con�rm an incr ease in knowledge equal to or greater than 70% in the training material. (30% are women)

ased for IECBapplication,M&E and effective and e�cient administrative Projectmanagement,supported with an outcomes-based M&Esystem.

ngthening capabilities regarding IECB’s, biodiversity and ecosystem services, measuredthrough survey.

Indicator 11 Number of communication measures designed and implemented for strengthening capabilities.

0 A Strategic Communication Plan (1) focused on knowledgemanagement, developed and in continuous implementation. A Plan for strengthening capabilities (1) developed and in continuous implementation. One Training Course (1) undera self-teaching method designed and beginning implementation. Communication measures forstrengthening capabilities designed and in continuous implementation (for example: experience sharing (4 land / 4 marine); training activities (1 IECB course developed and at beginning of implementation); development and publication of documents (IECB guidelines (4)); bulletins and progress on systematization of experiences (4); promotion of citizen science platforms (DE Mashue (1) and DELiquiñe (1)).

A Strategic Communication Plan (1) focused on knowledge management implemented. An Action Plan for strengthening capabilities implemented (1). One training course under a self-teaching method implemented (1). Communication measures for strengthening capabilities designed and implemented. (7 land/ 7 marine); training activities (1 IECB course implemented); development and publication ofIECB documents (1); bulletins (9) and systematization of the experiences (1); promotion of the citizen science platforms (DE Mashue (2) and DE Liquiñe (2)).

Outputs to achieve Outcome 3

7. 7. Strategic Communication Plan focused on knowledge management and strengthening capabilities.8. 8. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Strategy, stakeholders engagement plan, indigenous peoples plan framework and gender plan implemented for e�cient, eff ective and sustainable achievement of outcomes.

[1] Baseline, mid-term and end of project target levels must be expressed in the same neutral unit of analysis as the corresponding indicator. Baseline is thecurrent/original status or condition and needs to be quanti�ed. The baseline must be established before the project document is submitted to the GEF for �nalapproval. The baseline values will be used to measure the success of the project through implementation monitoring and evaluation.

[2] Target is the change in the baseline value that will be achieved by the mid-term review and then again by the terminal evaluation.

[3] Preliminary referential data, considering estimations of C absorption (-238 ± 31 g C/m2) for temperate forests in the Region of Los Lagos, developed byPérez-Quezada et al, 2018.

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments fromCouncil at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF).

Comments from STAP / GermanyGermany requests that the following requirements are taken into account during the design of the �nal project proposal: Germany would like to emphasizethat �nancial resource mobilization for biodiversity conservation needs to go hand in hand with efforts to slow the drivers of conservation costs and toimprove effective spending capacity. The envisioned approach should therefore go beyond the development and implementation of innovative �nancingmechanisms such as payments for ecosystem services (PES) and biodiversity offsets. In this context, Germany kindly asks to include a section in the �nalproject document that details how the project contributes to track, report and reform �nance �ows (e.g. subsidies) that are potentially harmful to biodiversityand to reform these types of �nance �ows to channel them towards biodiversity-friendly activities, or at least towards activities that are not potentiallyenvironmentally harmful. Response to comments from Germany: The purpose of the Project is to improve national �nancing for biodiversity through the design, implementation and optimization of market-based economicinstruments for the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (IECB). These instruments are Ecosystem Services Retribution, Biodiversity Offsets;Derecho Real de Conservación and a Public Certi�cation System for Biodiversity Conservation activities, that will strengthen public �nancing and will fosterthe private sector’s economic contribution to maintaining the country’s natural capital (PRODOC, Section IV Strategy). The Project is aware that implementingIECB and generating new monetary and non-monetary incentives for biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation is not su�cient to reduce drivers ofbiodiversity loss. There are still �nance �ow s that are harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem services. Thus, the Project has established three strategies tostrengthen the application of IECB while contributing to reduce negative incentives for biodiversity conservation: 1. Create and strengthen a robust institutional and governance system at the national and local scale to support IECB implementation in demonstrationexperiences (PRODOC, Section VI Project Results Framework). With participation of government agencies from different sectors (i.e. Public Works, Tourism,Fisheries, Indigenous Peoples matters, among others) it will be possible to mainstream biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation in their institutionaltargets, management, plans, strategies and programs. This will also allow the monitoring and assessment of actions aimed at counteracting the drivers ofbiodiversity degradation; the sustainability measures that will be implemented as part of the IECB; subsidies for nature-based income generating activities thattake place in the pilot sites; institutional �nancing and the capacity and effective spending for biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation (see detailsin Section V Outcomes and Associations and in Section VI Project Results Framework). Each IECB demonstration experience has a local governance structurein which government agencies from different sectors will participate not only to monitor the IECB implementation, but to channel their own instruments andavailable funding for the objectives of biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation. For example, INDAP -an agency from the Ministry of Agriculture thatworks with small landholders who mostly live on peaseant family farming- will participate in each of the terrestrial ESR demonstration experiences (see detailsin Annex 12 of the PRODOC) to provide their training and funding platforms to foster sustainable practices in cattle ranching and agriculture in theirbene�ciaries, many of which will par ticipate of the IECB mechanisms. 2. Design Project outputs that are part of the IECB implementation and at the same time offer opportunities to contribute to the objectives, interests and legalmandate of other government agencies. The target of Outcome 1/ indicator 8 (PRODOC, Section VI Project Results Framework) is de�ned as the number ofmeasures for strengthening institutional capabilities as a result of IECB application for biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation. Achieving thesetargets will generate changes in institutional management to improve IECB inclusion, reinforce sustainability in public funding, counteract actions that aredrivers of biodiversity degradation, and other related bene�ts. These targets ensure the commitment of the institutions from different sectors (Ministry ofSocial Development, Finance, Agriculture, Public Works, Tourism, National Assets, among others) to participate in the Project, in addition to including IECB’s asone of the strategies to comply with the country’s international commitments, such as the NDC (See details in Section V of the PRODOC: Outcomes andAssociations). Outcome 2, in the targets related to development of the demonstration experiences (Outcome 2/ indicator 9/ Section VI Project ResultsFramework of the PRODOC), together with optimizing and validating IECB application, will contribute concrete sustainable management measures, greenproject models, an information system (M&E) and �nancing str ategies.

3. Design �na ncing strategies for each of the six land and marine IECB demonstration experiences through a speci�c consultancy (PRODOC, Section X TotalBudget and Workplan and Annex 6 Overview of Technical Consultancies). These will be implemented by the conservation guarantors of each pilot site incoordination with the Macroregional Coordinator and the bene�ciaries. These strategies will target different sources of funding to support and strengthen theimplementation of the IECB mechanisms, including public funding for income-generating activities that could be channeled for mainstreaming biodiversity andecosystem services conservation as part of other development activities.

ANNEX C: Status of Utilization of Project Preparation Grant (PPG). (Provide detailed funding amount of the PPG activities�nancing status in the table below:

PPG Grant Approved at PIF: 100,000Project Preparation Activities Implemented GETF/LDCF/SCCF Amount ($)

Budgeted Amount Amount Spent To date

Amount Committed

Project preparation grant to �naliz e the project Economic Instruments and Tools to Support the Conservation of Biodiversity, the Payment of Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

100,000 97,425 2,575

Total 100,000 97,425 2,575

ANNEX D: Project Map(s) and Coordinates

Please attach the geographical location of the project area, if possible.

The geographic location, represented in the map of the sites for development of the demonstration experiences, is presented by ecosystem and byinstrument. 1. IECB demonstration experiences in Ecosystem Services Retribution /ESR) in a land ecosystem: Figure 2. Map of the Los Ríos Region (Map of Chile, upper left), with the position of the ESR Mashue and the ESR Liquiñe demonstration experiences anddistribution of watersheds for soil and native forest state of conservation studies.

1.1. i. ESR IECB Demonstration experiences in land ecosystems, site at Mashue, Region of Los Ríos, Province of Ranco, La Unión Township, locality ofMashue. ii. IECB experience in Derecho Real de Conservación in land ecosystem in the Region of Los Ríos, Province of Ranco, La Unión Township, locality of Mashue. Figure 3. Mashue waterhed

1.2. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in land ecosystems, site at Liquiñe, Region Los Ríos, Province of Valdivia, Panguipulli Township, locality of Liquiñe. Figure 4. Liquiñe watershed

2. IECB demonstration experiences with feasibility for development of Derecho Real de Conservación in continental aquatic ecosystem (wetlands): 2.1. Metropolitan Region, Alto Maipo Wetlands

Figure 5. El Yeso watershed

2.2. Region of Concepción, Urban Wetlands at Rocuant Andalien (Urban wetlands) Figure 6. Location of the Rocuant Andalien wetland

2.3. Region of La Araucanía, Queule Wetlands (Rural Wetlands/indigenous communities) Figure 7. Location of Queule River Wetlands

3. IECB demonstration experiences in Ecosystem Services Retribution, marine and coastal ecosystem.

3.1. Figure 8. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in marine and coastal ecosystem located in the Areas for Management and Exploitation of BentonicResources (AMERB) in the Region of Valparaíso, Puchuncavi Township, in the Maitencillo AMERB’s. This DE focuses on supporting the creation of no-takezones to protect biodiversity.

3.2. Figure 9. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in marine and coastal ecosystem located in the Areas for Management and Exploitation of BentonicResources (AMERB) in the Region of Valparaíso, Puchuncavi Township, Ventanas AMERB. This DE focuses on supporting the creation of no-take zones toprotect biodiversity.

3.3. Figure 10. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in marine and coastal ecosystem located in the Indigenous Peoples Coastal Marine Areas (ECMPO) inthe Region of Los Lagos, Ancud Township, ECMPO Caulin. This DE focuses on supporting the creation of no-take zones to protect biodiversity.

3.4. Figure 11. ESR IECB demonstration experiences in marine and coastal ecosystem located in the Areas for Management and Exploitation of BentonicResources (AMERB) in the Region of Los Lagos, Ancud Township, AMERB of Chepu. This DE focuses on supporting the creation of no-take zones to protectbiodiversity.

ANNEX E: Project Budget Table

Please attach a project budget table.

ExpenditureCategory Detailed Description

Component (USDeq.) Responsible Entity

Comp. 1 Comp. 2 Comp. 3 Sub-total M&E PMC Total (USDea)

(ExecutingEntity receiving fundsfrom the GEF Agenc

y)[1]

Equipment

Account Code 73400 - Rental &Maint of Other Equip. Vehicle rent for mobilizing the Macro-Regional Technical Coordinator (RTC) for Los Ríos -Los Lagos (Output 5). Total cost: USD$ 34,462TBWP (USD$ 4,308/Y1; $ 8,615annual average / Y2-Y3-Y4 and$4,308/Y4)

34,462 34,462 34,462 MMA

Equipment

Account Code 72400 - Communic & Audio Visual Equip. Mobile internet plan to support the management of land conservation guarantors. (Output 5). Totalcost: USD$ 1,846 for 48 months (USD $ 231/Y1; 461 annual average /Y2-Y3-Y4 and $232 /Y5) Cuenta 72400 - Communic & Audio Visual Equip. Cell phone plan for the Regional Technical Coordinator for the macro zone of Los Ríos/Los Lagos (Output5). Total cost: USD$ 1,039 for 54 months (USD $ 173/Y1; 231 annual average /Y2-Y3-Y4 and$173 /Y5)

2,885 2,885 2,885 MMA

Account Code 72800 - Information Technology Equipmt. Computer for the Regional TechnicalCoordinator for the Los Ríos/Los Lagos Macrozone. (Output5). Total cost: USD$ 1,200 Account Code 72800 - Informat

Equipment ion Technology Equipmt. Computer repairs for the Regional Technical Coordinator for the LosRíos/Los Lagos Macrozone. (Output 5). Total cost: USD$ 500 Component 3. Knowledge management, learning, monitoring and evaluation for effective IECBimplementation.

1,700 1,700 1,700 MMA

Equipment

Account Code 72800 - Information Technology Equipment. Computer for the National Technical Coordinator. Total cost: USD$ 2,400 (USD$ 1,200 for 2 units) Account Code 72800 - Information Technology Equipment. Computer repairs for the NationalTechnical Coordinator. Total cost: USD$ 1000 Account Code 72800 - Information Technology Equipment. Portable projector for presentations in workshops and meetings. Total cost: USD 1,000 (USD$ 500for 2 units)

- 4,400 4,400 UNDP

Grants

Account Code 72600 – Grants.Donation Agreement for the marine conservation guarantor Capital Azul for implementing theIECB demonstration experiencein Ventanas and Maitencillo AMERB’s (Output 5) (Total USD $ 172,732 / Y2-Y3-Y4). Grants willhave to follow UNDP policy on Low Value Grants in the management arrangement Account Code 72600 – Grants.Donation Agreement for the marine conservation guarantor Costa Humboldt for implementingthe IECB demonstration experience in ECMPO Caulín / AMERBChepu (Output 5) (Total USD $243,896 / Y2-Y3-Y4). Grants will have to follow UNDP policy onLow Value Grants in the management arrangement Account Code 72600 – Grants.Donation Agreement for the lan 614,628 614,628 614,628 MMA

d conservation guarantor, the Liquiñe Rural Potable Water Committee (CAPR) for implementing the IECB demonstration experience in the Liquiñe APR system (Output 5) (Total USD 99,000/ Y2-Y3-Y4). Grants will have tofollow UNDP policy on Low Value Grants in the management arrangement Account Code 72600 – Grants.Donation Agreement for the land conservation guarantor, the Mashue Rural Potable Water Committee (CAPR) for implementing the IECB demonstration experience in the Mashue APR system (Output 5) (Total USD 99,000/ Y2-Y3-Y4). Grants will have tofollow UNDP policy on Low Value Grants in the management arrangement

Sub-contractto executingpartner

Account Code 74596 - Servicesto Projects - GOEs. UNDP Support Services according to LOA.

- 60,018 60,018 UNDP

Contractualservices-Individual

Account Code 71400 - Contractual services - Individuals. IECB institutionalization head. Total cost: USD 159,478 (40 months -average USD 47,832 annual average/Y1 to Y3 and 15,982 /Y4)

159,478 159,478 159,478 MMA


Account Code 71400 - Contractual Services - Individual. Macro-Regional Technical Coordinator(RTC) Los Ríos -Los Lagos for the organization, coordination and evaluation of IECB demonstration experiences in Regions ofLos Lagos and Los Ríos. Totalcost: USD 154,079 (54 months($25,679 /Y1; 34,240 annual average /Y2 to Y4; $ 25680/ Y5)(Output 1 a 8)

154,079 154,079 154,079 MMA

Contractual

Account Code 71400 - Contractual services - Individuals. Coordinator for Administration and Monitoring & Evaluation (CAAM&E). Total cost: USD$ 171,108 for 60 months (USD$34,221 annu

$


al average/ Y1 to Y2 and $34,222 annual average/ Y3 to Y5) (Output 1 a 8) Account Code 71400 -Contractual services - Individuals. National Technical Coordinator (NTC). Total cost: USD 60,016 /Total 15 months (Output 1 a 8)

180,537 180,537 50,589 231,126 MMA


Account Code 71400 -Contractual services - Individuals. National Technical Coordinator (NTC). Total cost: USD 19,721 /Total 5 months (Output 1 a 8)

- 19,721 19,721 UNDP

Account Code 72100 -Contractual Services-Companies. Legalassistance in IECB’s for supporting the following: drafting the EM’s Exempt Resolution for institutionalizing the National Biodiversity Committee (Output 1); drafting a proposal for regulationto establish a Offsets repository within the SEIA framework (Output 2); creation and validation of a general contract model for ecosystem services retribution (Output 2); consultancy for drafting a proposal for regulations to create a Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Certi�cationSystem, and measures for its enactment (Output 2); consultancy for drafting a proposal for statutes for Rural Potable WaterCommittees (CAPR) that include objectives associated with NBS in zones of multi-functional management in basins that provide water, to be incorporated into the DOH’s manuals (Department of Water Works) (Output 2).Total cost: USD 19,231 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for drafting a methodological proposal, with ecologicalequivalency criteria, for appropriate biodiversity Offsets in marine-coastal ecosystems (Output2) T t l t USD$ 25 641

Contractualservices-Company

2). Total cost: USD$ 25,641 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for the application and validation of methodological proposals for appropriate biodiversity Offsets in marine-coastal ecosystems through the development of DE’s, and for the application of appropriate Offsets methodology in pilot marine sites for ESR Ventanas, Maitencillo, Chepu and/or Caulín (Output 2).Total cost: USD$ 154,573 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for drafting success indicators for surveillance of appropriate compensation measureswithin the SEIA framework in marine-coastal and land ecosystems (Output 2). Total cost: USD$ 12,820 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for participative draftingand validating of guidelines forthe implementation of the ESRmechanism on the basis of theDE in land and fresh water andmarine-coastal ecosystems (Contribution to the creation and validation of a general contract model for ecosystem services retribution) (Output 2). Total cost: USD$ 12,820 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for design of guidelines for certifying biodiversity and ecosystem services, coordinatedwith the IECB information system; application of criteria for guidelines proposed for Certi�cation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in the Project’s DE’sin land and fresh water and marine-coastal environments; validation of guidelines through workshops with relevant stakehold

440,027 440,027 440,027 MMA

kshops with relevant stakeholders (certi�cation companies, local communities and EM departments). Also to contribute to drafting a proposed regulation forestablishing a Biodiversity andEcosystem Services Certi�cation System, and measures for itsenactment (Output 2). Total cost: USD$ 10,385 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for supporting the implementation of improvements in the Environment Superintendency’s information systems for environmental monitoring of compensation measures in accordance with the commitment in the Environmental Quali�cation Resolutions (EQR) (Output 2). Totalcost: USD$ 19,231 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for: 1) the operability of the IECB (ESR, RCR, Offsets, andCerti�cations) guidelines computerized processes; 2) design of a multi-purpose platform for IECB information management;3) design of the IECB Information System. (Output 3). Total cost: USD$ 102,564 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy on the legal and tax aspects of involving companies andprivate parties in the implementation of RCR mechanism. (Output 2). Total cost: USD$ 10,256 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for carrying out a study for the evaluation of the state ofconservation of native forests and ecosystem services baselines (carbon sinking and water supply) in basins that supply water in the Los Ríos Region; designof recovery and management a

ctions for the protection and recuperation of ecosystem services, carbon sinking and water provision in these basins (Output4); and application of key component matrix (level 1 methodological guidelines for appropriateOffsets) (Output 2) and systematization in ESR implementation sites Mashue and Liquiñe. Total cost: USD$ 68,083


Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Technical Assistance on marine IECB’s to accompany the technicaldevelopment of IECB’s in marine environments, their implementation in demonstration experiences and systematization of the model conservation project on the basis of implemented IECB’s. (Output 1 a 8) Total cost: USD 34,462 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Technical Advisor on land IECB’s to accompany the technical development of IECB’s in land-based environments, their implementation in demonstration experiencesand systematization of the model conservation project on the basis of the implemented IECB’s.(Output 1 to 8) Total cost: USD34,462 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for evaluating ecosystemservices of scenic beauty associated with tourism in the locality of Liquiñe, Panguipulli Township, Los Ríos Region. (Output5). Total cost: USD 16,666 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for developing studies onthe return on investment in NBS’s for water security in Rural P

t bl W t (APR) t i

136,872 136,872 136,872 MMA

otable Water (APR) systems inMashue and Liquiñe. (Output5). Total cost: USD 25,641 Account Code 72100 - Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for implementing RCR’s in 4 demonstration experiencesfor: 1) ecological characterization (biodiversity and ecosystemservices) for landholdings under RCR’s, 2) application of guidelines for the implementation of RCR’s; 3) drafting legal RCR contracts (4); 4) revision and validation of RCR contract drafts by potential signatories. (Output 5). Total cost for 4 sites: USD$ 51,282; 2 covered with GEF funds: USD$ 25,641


Account Code 72100- Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy in gender and accompaniment in its transversalization inthe development of technical tools and implementation of demonstration experiences. Total cost: USD$ 24,000. (Output 1.8,1.9, 1.10) (Output 2, 4, 5, 7 y 8) Account Code 72100- Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for strengthening capabilities, including identifying training needs, drawing up and implementing the capabilities strengthening plan for stakeholders involved with the Project. (Totalcost USD$ 12,475) (Output 7) Account Code 72100- Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy for drafting and implementing the Strategic Communications Plan for knowledge management. (Total cost USD$ 80,346) (Output 7) Account Code 72100- Contractual Services-Companies. Consultancy (ies) for designing and implementing the on-line course(self-teaching or e-learning) on IECB implementation tools (guid

111,280 111,280 31,182 142,462 MMA

ECB implementation tools (guidelines on Offsets procedure, guidelines on ESR, RCR and certi�cations). (Total cost USD$ 25,641) (Output 7)

InternationalConsultants

Account Code 71200 - International Consultants. Internationalconsultant for carrying out Project mid-term evaluation. Totalcost: USD$ 14,000 (USD$ 350/day for 40 days) (Output 8) Account Code71200 - International Consultants. International consultant for carrying out Project �nal e valuation. Total cost: USD$ 14,000 (USD$ 350/day for 40 days) (Output 8)

21,871 21,871 6,129 28,000 MMA

Local Consultants

Account Code 71300 - Local Consultants. Local consultant for the standardization of biometrical methodologies for characterizing and monitoring ecosystemservices in coordination with EM bodies and strategic partners. (Output 4). Total costs: USD$8,975 / Y1. Account Code 71300 - Local Consultants. Local consultant to evaluate and project markets associated with IECB implementation (through Offsets, ESR, RCRand Certi�cations), including aninternational market analysis ofecosystem services (biodiversity credit, carbon, among others). (Output 6). Total costs: USD$ 8,974 / Y3. Account Code 71300 - Local Consultants. Local consultant to establish methodological guidelines for estimating the social and economic bene�ts of ecosystem services (co-bene�ts) (ex.Carbon sinking, water supply, temperature regulation, etc.) andincorporating the results in theDirectives for the Social Cost ofCarbon. (Output 4). Total costs:USD$ 19,231/ Y3. Account Code 71300 - Local Co

62,821 62,821 62,821 MMA

Account Code 71300 Local Consultants. Local consultant fordeveloping criteria and modelsfor eligible green expenditures in the green sectors “Natural Resources, land use and marine areas” and “Water Management”(Green Bonds Framework) anddevelopment of guidelines forNBS project models to be developed with public �nancing (National System for Public Financing). (Output 4). Total costs: USD$ 25,641 (USD 12,820 /Y3 andUSD 12,821/Y4)

Local Consultants

Account Code 71300 - Local Consultants. Consultant for consolidating �nancial str ategy for IECB project model on the basis of results of consultancies on social and economic bene�ts of ecosystem services, model of eligible green expenditures and NBS model. (Output 6). Total costs: USD$ 8,974

8,974 8,974 8,974 MMA

Local Consultants

Account Code 71300- Local Consultants National consultant for carrying out Project mid-termevaluation. Total cost: USD$ 12,000 (USD$ 300/day for 40 days) (Output 8) Account Code 71300- Local Consultants National consultant for carrying out Project �nal e valuation. Total cost: USD$ 12,000 (USD$ 300/day for 40 days)(Output 8) Account Code 71300 -Local Consultants National consulting for the systematization of experiences, results and learning of the project. Total cost: USD $ 10,000 (Output 7 - Activity 7.2 - Q4 /Y4)

26,558 26,558 7,442 34,000 MMA

Training, Wor

Account Code 75700 -TrainingWorkshops and Conferences.Meals for informal meetings with strategic partners and consultants (Output 2). Total cost: USD$ 513 (USD$ 27/meeting; total

g,kshops, Meetings

$ ( $ g;19 meetings) Component 2. Application of IECB mechanisms including Offsets for residual impacts on biodiversity and retribution for ecosystem services in demonstration projects.

513 513 513 MMA

Account Code 75700 -Training,Workshops and Confer. Project�nalization workshops in Los Ríos and Los Lagos (2) . This onlyconsiders the cost for lunchesand coffee breaks for 60 people. This also includes cost of meals for 50 people visiting eachcommunity for the demonstration experiences (2). Appropriatespace for the event must be planned for the strategic partners.Total cost: USD$4,421 for 2 workshops (Output 1-5) Account Code 75700 -Training,Workshops and Confer. Project�nalization workshop in Santiago (1) . This only considers thecost of lunches and coffee breaks for 60 people. Appropriate space for the event must be planned for the strategic partners. Total cost: USD$ 2,077) (Output1)Account Code 75700 -Training,Workshops and Confer. Workshops between land demonstration experiences (includes genderfocus); for 2 days and 1 night for 5 people. Total cost: USD$ 3,135 (USD$ 1,045 each, for 3 workshops) (Output 5) Account Code 75700 -Training,Workshops and Confer. Workshops between marine demonstration experiences (includes gender focus) for representatives ofVentanas/Maitencillo AMERB’sand Chepu AMERB and Caulin ECMPO. Three representatives ofthe Ventanas and Maitencillo Demonstratives Experiences (DE

)

Training, Workshops, Meetings

´s) travel for 2 days and one night to the Chepu and Caulín DE’sin Chiloé. Total cost: USD$ 3,820 (USD$ 1,910 each, for 2 workshops) (Output 5) Account Code 75700 -Training,Workshops and Confer. Workshops between marine demonstration experiences (includes gender focus) of the Caulin ECMPOand the Chepu AMERB, Chiloé,Los Lagos Region. Total cost: USD$ 3,135 (USD$ 1,045 each, for 3 workshops) (Output 5) Account Code 75700 -Training,Workshops and Confer. Visitors’ workshops for partners and future IECB bene�ciaries t o landdemonstration experiences of the Los Rios Region. 4 Representatives of other CAPR’s to the Mashue and Liquiñe DE’s. Total cost: USD$ 2,090 (USD$ 1,045 each, for 2 workshops) (Output5)Account Code 75700 -Training,Workshops and Confer. Visitors’ workshops for partners and future IECB bene�ciaries t o demonstration experiences of the Chepu AMERB and the Caulín ECMPO, Chiloé, Los Lagos Region.Total cost: USD$ 2,090 (USD$1,045 each, for 2 workshops) Account Code 75700 -Training,Workshops and Confer. Visitors’ workshops for partners and future IECB bene�ciaries t o landdemonstration experiences of the Region of Valparaiso. 4 Representatives of other �shermen’s unions to the Ventanas andMaitencillo DE’s. Total cost: USD$ 2,423 (USD$ 1,211.5 each, for 2 workshops) (Output 5) Account Code 75700 -Training,Workshops and Confer. IECB workshops (ESR, RCR, Offsets and Certi�cations) in Santiago and regions where demonstration

30,132 30,132 8,444 38,576 MMA

d regions where demonstrationexperiences are implemented. Total cost: USD$ 5,385 (USD$ 769 each, for 7 workshops) (Output 2 y 7) Account Code 75700.Training,workshop and Confer. Support for the implementation of the gender plan in order to safeguardthe participation of women in the demonstrative experiences ofmarine and terrestrial CSR. Total cost: USD $ 10,000 (Output 5Activities 5.1 and 5.2, marine and terrestrial ED and Output 7)

Travel

Account Code 71600 - Travel. Travel related to technical assistance, monitoring, strengtheningcapabilities and informing about the development process and�nal outcomes of guidelines r egarding IECB mechanisms in Santiago and the Regions where the demonstration experienceswill be carried out, for the Project’s technical personnel, consultants and strategic partners (Outputs 2 - 7). Total cost: USD 14,579 (Total for year: $35,9/Y1;13,282 / Y2; 1,262/Y3)

16,015 16,015 16,015 MMA

Travel

Account Code 71600 - Travel. Travel costs for accompanying the development of the demonstration experience in Chepu andCaulín. Includes per diem for 5days / 4 nights for travel for continuous accompaniment in thedevelopment of demonstrationexperiences in Chiloé. One tripevery 2 months is contemplated and this includes ferry cost. Vehicle rental and gasoline are covered elsewhere. (Output 5). Total cost: USD$ 26,523 (USD$6,630 annual average/Y1-Y2-Y3and 6,633/Y4; total 6 trips for year/ total 24 trips)

26,523 26,523 26,523 MMA

Account Code 71600 - Travel. Travel for mid-term and �nal e valuations Includes international

Travel

uations. Includes internationalconsultant, national consultantand national Project coordinator. Output 8. Total cost: USD$ 20,000 (USD$ 10,000 per trip for2 trips) Account Code 71600 - Travel. Travel of 5 days for 4 persons (Project staff members and MMAprofessionals) to Project inception and �nalization workshops in Los Ríos and Los Lagos (1 event in each Region). Output (1 -5). Total cost: USD$ 9,625 (USD$ 4812 trip /Y1 and $4813 trip/Y5) Account Code 71600 - Travel. Travel for one day to Project inception and �nalization workshops for participants from Valparaíso Region to Santiago, from Mashue and Liquiñe to Valdivia, and from Chepu and Caulín to Ancud or Puerto Montt (2 Vans for10 persons in Los Ríos, 2 Vansfor 10 persons in Los Lagos, and 1 Van for 10 persons in Valparaíso). Output (1 - 5). Total cost: USD$ 3,205 (USD$ 641 per trip for 5 trips)

25,644 25,644 7,186 32,830 MMA

Travel

Account Code 71600 -Travel. Travel by the PNC to CORECC workshops in Los Lagos /planningwith RTC and other stakeholders. Total cost: USD$ 2,420 (USD$ 1,210 per trip for 2 trips) Account Code 71600 -Travel. Travel by the PNC to CORECC workshops in Los Ríos/planning with RTC and other stakeholders. Total cost: USD$ 2,318 (USD$ 1,159 per trip for 2 trips) (Output1)Account Code 71600 -Travel. Travel by the PNC to CORECC workshops in Valparaíso and Ventanas/Maitencillo DE’s, and monitoring of demonstration experiences and interinstitutional management. Total cost: USD$ 11,

- 15,754 15,754 UNDP

g $ ,016 (USD$ 459 per trip for 24 trips) (Output 1)

O�ce Supplies

Account Code 72500 - Supplies. Gasoline and tolls per day forcontinuous accompaniment ofthe development of the demonstration experiences in Liquiñe,Mashue, Ventanas/Maitencillo,Chepu and Caulín.(Output 5).Total cost:USD$ 5,192 (USD$ 1,038/years Y1 to Y3 and $1,039 Y4to Y5). Account Code 72500 - Supplies. Meals for informal meetingswith strategic partners and consultants (Output 5). Total cost: USD$ 513 (USD$128 Y1 to Y3 and $129/ Y4; total 20 meetings) Account Code 72500 - Supplies. Masks/ PPE for health safetyof the Regional Technical Coordinator for the Los Ríos/Los Lagos Macro-zone. (Output 5). Total cost: USD$ 400

6,105 6,105 6,105 MMA

O�ce Supplies

Account Code 72500 - Supplies. Masks/ PPE for health security of the workshop participantsfor strengthening capabilities. Total cost: USD$ 400. (Output7)

312 312 88 400 MMA

O�ce Supplies

Account Code 72500 - Supplies. Masks/ PPE for health safetyof the Project’s National Coordinator. Total cost: USD$ 400 Account Code 72500 - Supplies. Meals for informal meetingswith strategic partners and consultants. Total cost: USD$ 410(USD$100 for Y1 to Y3 and $110/ Y4; total 16 meetings)

- 810 810 UNDP

Other Operating Costs

Account Code 74100 - Professional Services. Translation of the mid-term evaluation and �nalevaluation, plus annual reports(PIR). 120 pag. For each report. Total cost: USD$ 18,000 (USD$24 per page; for 750 pages). (Output 8)

14,060 14,060 3,940 18,000 MMA

Account Code 74100 - Professi

Other Operating Costs

onal Services. Annual audit of the Project carried out by the UNDP. Total cost: USD 8,821 for 5audits (Output 8)

- 8,821 8,821 UNDP

678,854 986,228 410,394 2,075,476 115,000 109,524 2,300,000

ANNEX F: (For NGI only) TermsheetInstructions. Please submit an �naliz ed termsheet in this section. The NGI Program Call for Proposals provided a template in Annex A of the Callfor Proposals that can be used by the Agency. Agencies can use their own termsheets but must add sections on Currency Risk, Co-�nancing Ratioand Financial Additionality as de�ned in the template pr ovided in Annex A of the Call for proposals. Termsheets submitted at CEO endorsementstage should include �nal terms and conditions of the �nancing.

ANNEX G: (For NGI only) Re�owsInstructions. Please submit a re�ows table as pr ovided in Annex B of the NGI Program Call for Proposals and the Trustee excel sheet for re�ows(as provided by the Secretariat or the Trustee) in the Document Section of the CEO endorsement. The Agencys is required to quantify any expected�nancial r eturn/gains/interests earned on non-grant instruments that will be transferred to the GEF Trust Fund as noted in the Guidelines on theProject and Program Cycle Policy. Partner Agencies will be required to comply with the re�ows pr ocedures established in their respective FinancialProcedures Agreement with the GEF Trustee. Agencies are welcomed to provide assumptions that explain expected �nancial r e�ow schedules.

ANNEX H: (For NGI only) Agency Capacity to generate re�owsInstructions. The GEF Agency submitting the CEO endorsement request is required to respond to any questions raised as part of the PIF reviewprocess that required clari�cations on the Agency Capacity t o manage re�ows. This Annex seeks to demonstrate Agencies’ capacity and eligibilityto administer NGI resources as established in the Guidelines on the Project and Program Cycle Policy, GEF/C.52/Inf.06/Rev.01, June 9, 2017(Annex 5).